In this case study an attempt will be made to look at the eucharistic theology and the philosophical underpinnings of this theology in the Anglican eucharistic liturgies of the twentieth century. Both official liturgies of the various provinces of the Anglican Communion and other unofficial liturgical products will be considered in this case study.

The 1662 Book of Common Prayer remained in use in much of the Anglican Communion, practically unchanged until the beginning of the twentieth century. Persistent ritual controversies in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth century resulted in a Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline being appointed in 1904, which among other things recommended that the process of liturgical revision begin in England (Cuming, 1982: 164 and Jasper, 1989) in an attempt to resolve some of the tensions in the church by bringing about needed revision. This process led to the production of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, the history of which is comprehensively reviewed in both Cuming (1982) and Jasper (1989) and does not so much concern the purposes of this project, apart from the theology presented in eucharistic liturgy of that book. In other parts of the Anglican Communion however, such as Scotland and the United States of America, eucharistic liturgies apart from the 1662 BCP, had been in place since as early as 1637 in Scotland (see Case Study on the Scottish Prayer Books of 1637 - 1.34 and 1764 – 2.17). The first official Prayer Book of the United States of America was published in 1789 (see The Book of Common Prayer, online) and a stream of prayer books, following the Scottish and 1549 models proceeded through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The history and theology of the American Book of Common Prayer is comprehensively set out in Hatchett (1980) and this standard work should be consulted for greater detail. Copies of the various American prayer books can be found at The Book of Common Prayer (online).

Shepherd (1955) (see Case Study 4.45) argued that in the past two traditions existed side by side in the Anglican Communion - the tradition of the 1549 Book of Common Prayer (which is reflected in the eucharistic liturgies of Scotland, The USA and Southern Africa) and the tradition of the 1552/1662 Book of Common Prayer which up until recent times was represented in provinces such as England, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland through their continued and almost exclusive use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Shepherd’s analysis is largely bypassed in the modern age of ecumenical liturgical development and scholarship, where the vast majority of Anglican provinces use eucharistic liturgies based to varying degrees on primitive models and modern ecumenical scholarship and liturgical patterns. These modern Anglican eucharistic liturgies generally express a moderate realist philosophical understanding of the Eucharist, whilst also maintaining the use of the 1662 BCP alongside these modern forms. Instead of distinguishing between a 1549 and 1662 model of liturgical practice in the Anglican Communion, as Shepherd did, it now seems more likely that the distinction between uses is on the basis of those national churches whose modern liturgies follow the modern ecumenical shape and realist theology of the Eucharist exclusively (e.g. the USA, Southern Africa, Scotland) and those national churches who follow a combination of modern and more traditional eucharistic shape together with both realist and nominalist theologies of the Eucharist (e.g. England and Australia). In Australia for example, in the most recent prayer book, A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) there are three forms of the Eucharist – one following the shape and theology of the 1662 service of Holy Communion, one following modern ecumenical trends in shape and realist theology and a third whilst following modern ecumenical shape, presents a nominalist theology of the Eucharist. Diversity of practice, both in terms of shape and theology, is therefore it seems common in many parts of the Anglican Communion.

Added impetus for this diversity came as a result of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 where the bishops decided that the shape and theology of BCP 1662 could no longer be normative for the Anglican Communion (Lambeth Conference Report, 1958, Report of the Subcommittee on the Book of Common Prayer, 2.78-2.98). This was partly due to the fact that considerable liturgical scholarship in preceding decades had revealed significant insights about the primitive eucharistic forms and many sought to incorporate these insights in new liturgies, but it was also partly due to the fact that liturgical development in the Anglican Communion had moved on in various places without the imprimatur of the Lambeth Conference and the bishops had little option other than to acknowledge the developments that had occurred. There had for example always been a consistent and developed realist strain of eucharistic theology in the Episcopal Churches of both Scotland and the United States of America, and there was nothing that the Lambeth Conference of 1958 could do but concede that the Anglican Liturgical scene had moved on. Colin Buchanan argues that in 1958, “Canada, the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon, Japan and the West Indies all had draft order in use, and stood on the eve of final authorization. Lambeth could hardly treat 1662 as irreformable or of the esse of Anglicanism, so the subcommittee [on liturgy] turned necessity into a virtue, … allowing, and even enshrining, the principle of national use” (Buchanan, 1968: 9). The subcommittee’s findings in recognising that the 1662 BCP was no longer “a safeguard of established doctrine” (Lambeth Conference Report, 1958: 2.78) were tolerant of more realist interpretations of eucharistic theology, especially in regard to the issues of eucharistic sacrifice, epiclesis and consecration (Lambeth Conference Report, 1958: 2.81-2.85). These conclusions were not universally recognised and there were some strong reactions against Lambeth’s recognition of both the modern ecumenical liturgical developments and the more realist strains of eucharistic theology (e.g. Stibbs, 1961 and Packer, 1962) whilst in Australia the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia was passed in 1962 with the 1662 BCP being set as the standard of worship and doctrine. Many however embraced the new found freedom and the Lambeth Conference of 1958 became a stimulus for liturgical revision in the Anglican Communion. The progress of this revision has been recorded in a sustained manner in some of Bishop Colin Buchanan’s exhaustive analyses of Anglican liturgical development (Buchanan, 1968, 1975 and 1985). One of the most important documents coming from the work of Lambeth 1958 was The Pan-Anglican Document of 1965, which set out the structure and contents of the eucharistic liturgy and is acknowledged as having influenced liturgical development in the Anglican Communion, e.g. in the Australia Prayer Book Revision in Australia (1966: ix) recognises The Pan-Anglican Document in its process of revision as does the Church of the Province of New Zealand – see The Liturgy or Eucharist of the Church of the Province of New Zealand (1966: 4). The Pan-Anglican Document is printed in Colin Buchanan’s book Modern Anglican Liturgies 1958-1968 (1968: 31-32) and the text will be cited from this source. The Pan-Anglican Document set out five phases in the celebration of the eucharistic rite:

1. The Preparation

2. The Service of the Word of God

3. The Great Intercession

4. The Service of the Lord’s Supper

5. The Dismissal (cited in Buchanan, 1968: 31).

The part that most concerns the purposes of this case study is part 4 (The Service of the Lord’s Supper). The Pan-Anglican Document made the following specification of this part of the Eucharist:

“4. The Service of the Lord’s Supper. This should include the placing of the gifts on the Lord’s Table and the ancient form of Sursum corda. The consecration prayer should be in the form of a thanksgiving for creation and for God’s mighty acts in Christ and in sending the Holy Spirit. The should be a recital of the words and acts of the Lord at the Last Supper and a prayer for the communicants. The Lord’s Prayer makes a fitting ending to this prayer. The Breaking of the Bread follows, and the Communion of clergy and people.” (cited in Buchanan, 1968: 32).

The norm of the primitive church is applied here rather than that of 1662 BCP, for example in the use of the word ‘thanksgiving’ and in reference to the mighty acts of Christ, the offertory moved closer to the consecration, prayer following consecration in the presence of the consecrated elements and reference to the work of the Holy Spirit. All of these aspects are also associated with more realist interpretations of eucharistic theology, but must be read in association with other contemporary documents which also presented a realist eucharistic theology and had significant influence on liturgical development and eucharistic theology (e.g. Gregory Dix’s famous work, The Shape of the Liturgy emphasising the four action shape of the Eucharist and presenting an essentially realist eucharistic theology – see Case Study 4.28).

It is beyond the scope of this case study to perform a survey of Anglican eucharistic development in the detail that Buchanan has provided, however an exploration of the different emphasises in terms of the eucharistic theology of various Anglican liturgies and prayer books and their underpinning philosophical basis is the subject of this case study.

Some conservative Evangelical dioceses (such as the Diocese of Sydney, Australia) have resisted the trend towards a realist theology of the Eucharist, even as an alternative, and have used and developed liturgies (e.g. Experimental Sunday Services, 1993 and Sunday Services, 2001) which reflect a particular theology of the Reformation, such as an emphasis upon the atonement or the satisfaction of God’s wrath, thereby distancing themselves from the realist theology of the modern liturgical movement. Some conservative Anglican Catholics have also published eucharistic liturgies, which attempt to present a more catholic understanding of the Eucharist (e.g. The Holy Eucharist, 1995/2002, published by the Bishop of Ballarat for use in his diocese) while still others have preferred to use the eucharistic liturgies of the Roman Rite. Both extreme Anglican Evangelicals and Anglican Catholics seem to be in the minority in the Anglican Communion with most dioceses and parishes using the prayer book prepared for that province. Evidence to support this assertion and relating to the Anglican Province of Australia is presented by Douglas (1999: 64) and reveals, on the basis of a survey on prayer book use conducted in February, 1999, that about 71% of parishes within the Anglican Church of Australia were using APBA (1995). Other dioceses and parishes were using other eucharistic liturgies such as the previous modern prayer book (An Australian Prayer Book, 1978) or the 1662 BCP, while a small number in the Diocese of Ballarat used eucharistic liturgies from other Anglican Provinces or the Roman Rite (as set out in The Holy Eucharist, 1995/2002) and others within the Diocese of Sydney used eucharistic liturgies from within that Diocese – e.g. Experimental Sunday Services (1993) developed by the Liturgical Committee of the Synod of the Diocese of Sydney. Subsequent to the collection of that data another set of liturgies has been produced in the Diocese of Sydney (Sunday Services, 2001) and it is presumed that these are also being used, but figures are not available about the rate of use.

The following sections of this case study refer to some of the eucharistic materials used in the Anglican Communion from the beginning of the twentieth century. Comments will be made about the eucharistic theology and the philosophical underpinnings of these eucharistic liturgies.

The Church of England

Alternatives to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

At the beginning of the twentieth century there were several unofficial alternatives to the 1662 BCP in use. These alternatives have been described in depth in Mark Dalby’s 1998 work entitled, Anglican Missals and their Canons: 1549, Interim Rite and Roman, and so do not need to be reviewed in detail here. It is sufficient to say that while some in England used the 1662 BCP unchanged, others used the ancient Sarum Rite of the English Church whilst still others used the Roman Rite.

One these unofficial alternative eucharistic liturgies was the English Missal, first published in 1912 (Dalby, 1998: 19). The Canon of the English Missal was a combination of all that was in 1662 with everything that was in the Roman Missal. It made no attempt to present a single coherent rite but left the decision about what was included to the celebrant. The ‘Canon of the Mass’ (English Missal, 1933 edition: 315-331) is printed in both English and Latin and commences with a description of the gifts of bread and wine in the Eucharist, asking:

The bread and wine are described as gifts, offerings and sacrifices which are offered to God in the Eucharist and signed as holy by the priest making the sign of the cross over them as that marked (+) places. Later they are described as “oblations” which God is asked to “graciously accept” (English Missal, 1933: 318). The Canon continues with strongly realist statements concerning the oblation and the presence of Christ, saying:

“Which oblation do thou, O God, we beseech thee, vouchsafe in all things, to make bles+sed, appro+ved, rati+fied, reasonable, and acceptable, that unto us it may become the Bo+dy and Blo+od of thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” (English Missal, 1933: 318).

The bread and wine, described as ‘oblations’ are said to ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ, thereby suggesting a change in the elements. The Canon also sets the words “For this is my Body” (English Missal, 1933: 319) out in a separate section in bold type, with a rubric directing that when these words are said the priest must be holding the bread, described as ‘the Host’. This suggests a specific moment of consecration and clearly identifies the presence of the body of Christ with the bread of the Eucharist. This is confirmed by the following rubric which directs that “having uttered these words, he [the priest] immediately genuflects and adores the consecrated Host: rises, shows it to the people, replaces it upon the Corporal, and again genuflects and adores” (English Missal, 1933: 319). This is followed by words which pray that those present:

The emphasis here is upon the offering of the gifts of bread and wine, apart from any other offering of self or praise and thanksgiving, such that there is an exclusive location of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is continued in the prayer which prays:

“We humbly beseech thee, almighty God: command thou these [the bread and wine] to be brought by the hands of thy holy Angel to thine altar on high, in the presence of thy divine majesty: that, as many of us, as by this partaking of the altar shall receive the most sacred, Bo+dy and Blo+od of thy Son, may be fulfilled with all heavenly benediction and grace.” (English Missal, 1933: 320).

The bread and wine seem no longer to be solely part of this world, but to come from the heavenly altar, and it is by this means of the gifts that the body and blood of Christ, with all their spiritual efficacy, are received. Clearly the signs and the signified are linked in a realist manner which at times borders on the immoderate degree. Following the commixture (the placing of a particle of the host in the consecrated wine) the following rubric is addressed to the priest: “Holding the Paten under the Chalice with his left hand, he reverently receives the Blood with the particle” (English Missal, 1933: 325). The use of the word ‘blood’ here is suggestive of immoderate realism, since it speaks of a physical presence of Christ’s blood in the Eucharist. This same suggestion of immoderate realism is also found in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist since one of the secret prayers which the priest is directed to pray after administration of Communion, says:

“Grant that the sacrifice, which I unworthy have offered before the eyes of thy majesty, may be acceptable to thee, and through thy mercy obtain thy gracious favour for me and all for whom I have offered it.” (English Missal, 1933: 326).

This seems to suggests that it is the offering of the eucharistic sacrifice that obtains the mercy of God, as distinct from a concept of eucharistic sacrifice where the notion of offering refers to a celebration of the one offering of Christ which is now present in the Eucharist (moderate realism).

Whilst the English Missal presents a clearly realist sacramental theology, linking sign and signified, the distinction between the moderate and immoderate degrees of realism remains less clear.

Another unofficial liturgical product of the early part of the twentieth century was The Anglican Missal, published by The Society of SS Peter and Paul, the society who had conducted the Anglo-Catholic Congresses beginning in 1920 (see Case Study on Anglo-Catholic Congresses – 4.1). The Report of the Second Anglo-Catholic Congress (1923) included an advertisement for The Anglican Missal which stated that it was the outcome of ten years of work and that it was aimed at providing one book for the whole Anglican body (Report of the First Anglo-Catholic Congress, 1923: 197). The Anglican Missal included the Order and Canon of what was described as ‘the First English Mass (1549)’ and the ‘Order and Canon of the Mass, Interim Rite’. Mark Dalby observes that The Anglican Missal,“had many merits” among which was “the first comprehensive altar book to offer as a form of the canon the 1662 prayer of consecration followed immediately by the prayer of oblation” (Dalby, 1998: 24). Despite this suggested merit, it seems that The Anglican Missal did not gain the universal support it sought from the whole ‘Anglican body’ and remained, along with the use of The English Missal and the Book of Common Prayer, part of the liturgical confusion that was part of the English scene in the early period of the twentieth century. The 1549 order, as printed in The Anglican Missal,has been considered elsewhere in this project (see Cranmer Case Study – 1.1 and Case Study on the 1549 and 1552 Book of Common Prayer – 1.2) and so will not be treated here, however the so called Interim Rite requires some comment. The Canon of the Mass in the Interim Rite refers to the bread and wine of the Eucharist as “these + gifts, these + offerings, these + holy and undefiled sacrifices, which first we offer unto thee for thy holy catholic Church” (The Anglican Missal, 1946: 128) and asks that God will make these oblations “bless+ed, ap+proved, ra+tified, reasonable and acceptable that it may become unto us the Bo+dy, and Blo+od of thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ” (The Anglican Missal, 1946: 134). The Canon goes on to pray that in the Eucharist God’s people “do offer unto thine excellent majesty of thine own gifts and bounty, a pure + victim, a holy + victim, a spotless + victim, the holy + Bread of eternal life, and the Cup + of everlasting salvation” (The Anglican Missal, 1946: 137). This language is clearly realist in that the signs are identified with the signified, however the degree of realism, moderate or immoderate, is not adequately distinguished, e.g. the linking of ‘oblations’ and ‘body and blood’ and ‘offer’ and ‘victim’ give the impression of a physical presence and sacrifice and therefore of immoderate realism. The rubric stating that the priest “receives the precious Blood” (The Anglican Missal, 1946: 148) also is suggestive of an immoderate realism.

1928 Book of Common Prayer

The 1928 BCP contained, in addition to the eucharistic liturgy of 1662, a eucharistic liturgy entitled An Alternative Order for the Administration of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion (BCP, 1928: 355-379). This liturgy included primitive eucharistic material and material also used in the 1549 BCP but deleted in the 1552 BCP and subsequent prayer books (Kyries, Offertory sentences referring specifically to the eucharistic gifts of bread and wine in a sacrificial context, the Benedictus, the use of eucharistic vestments and wafer bread, and the mixed chalice). The Agnus Dei was not however included in the 1928 BCP although it was included in some unofficial adaptations of 1928 material (e.g. Halse, 1939 and 1946/1962, Wylde, 1942 and Norman, undated). By far the most important changes however, were made in the 1928 Prayer of Consecration. This prayer, while affirming the one oblation of Christ, once offered on the cross as “a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world” (BCP, 1928: 368) also affirmed a moderate realist understanding of the Eucharist. Whereas the Prayer of Consecration in the 1662 BCP eucharistic liturgy had ended immediately after the institution narrative and proceeded immediately to communion, the 1928 eucharistic liturgy added a prayer of oblation after the institution narrative in which the events of Christ’s death, resurrection and ascension were recounted. BCP 1928 also associated the gifts of bread and wine with the remembrance of these events as an anamnesis. The anamnesis in 1928 read:

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance the precious death and passion of thy dear Son, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, according to his holy institution, do celebrate, and set before thy Divine Majesty with these holy gifts, the memorial which he hath willed us to make, rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits which he hath procured unto us.” (BCP, 1928: 368).

Moderate realism is expressed here since the remembrance of the death of Christ is specifically linked with the offering of the eucharistic gifts in the present in the Eucharist. It is in setting the elements before God that the memorial of Christ is said to be made. Some have argued the sense of the ancient verbs for ‘offer’ (offerimus in Latin and proseromen in Greek) is expressed by the English expressions, ‘we draw near to you with this bread and wine’ and ‘we bring or set before you this bread and cup’ (Burge, 1995: 6, note 58). If this is the case then the 1928 anamnesis (using ‘set before’) includes an offering or oblation in regard to the bread and wine of the Eucharist. This is further reinforced by the offering of the sacrifice of praise in the context of the consecration. In the 1662 BCP the offering of praise had been placed after the reception of Holy Communion so that the chances of associating the sacrifice of Christ with any offering in the Eucharist were limited. Offering became that of praise and thanksgiving for a past and completed event (Christ’s historic sacrifice) which was brought to mind in the context of the Eucharist. The 1928 BCP now said in the presence of the consecrated bread and wine and before the reception of Communion:

Here ‘this’ can be seen to refer to the offering of the bread and wine in the Eucharist as an act of thanksgiving and praise in addition to the offering of self as a sacrifice.

The 1928 Prayer of Consecration also uses says an epiclesis over the bread and wine linking them in a moderate realist way with the body and blood of Christ and suggesting that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. The epiclesis says:

“Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee, and with thy Holy and Life-giving Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify both us and these thy gifts of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of the Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, to the end that we, receiving the same, may be strengthened and refreshed in body and soul.” (BCP, 1928: 368-369).

The Spirit is here invoked so that the bread and wine ‘may be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ. The words ‘may be unto us’ are taken from the 1549 BCP as are the words ‘bless and sanctify’. The 1928 BCP reflecting knowledge of early liturgies, seemingly not available to Cranmer in 1549, invokes the Spirit over both the bread and wine and the people (that is, the people gathered to celebrate the Eucharist), whereas 1549 invokes the Spirit over the elements only. Clearly the linking is between the signs of bread and wine/the people and the signified body and blood of Christ. This linking is moderate realist and guards against immoderate realism by using the words ‘may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy Son’ rather than saying ‘may be the Body and Blood of thy Son’.

The 1928 BCP showed other evidence of moderate realism by allowing in rubrics at the end of the Eucharist for the reservation of the “consecrated Bread and Wine” for the sick (BCP, 1928: 372). The fact that the consecrated bread and wine is allowed to be reserved and carried out of the church shows that the presence of Christ’s body and blood is not restricted to the act of reception but remains present in an objective manner in the bread and wine and that the body and blood of Christ can be received by the sick without further consecration. In a separate service entitled ‘An Alternative Order for the Communion of the Sick’ (BCP, 1928: 465-466) rubrics ordered that bread and wine could be set apart for the purposes of communicating the sick as an extension of the Eucharist in the church, but the rubrics were careful to order that reservation was only for this purpose, that there be no service or ceremony in connexion with the reserved sacrament and that there be no exposition of the sacrament (BCP, 1928: 465). These rubrics seemed to be aimed at limiting any suggestion of a local presence of Christ in the elements and eucharistic adoration apart from the Eucharist itself, but not at limiting the idea of a moderate realist presence. This is further confirmed by rubrics which allow an aumbry or safe for the keeping of the consecrated elements, but which prohibit a tabernacle behind the altar since such a tabernacle was often associated with eucharistic adoration apart from the Eucharist and the service of benediction. Such a prohibition is presumably put in place to avoid notions of a local presence of Christ’s body and blood in the form of immoderate realism.

The process of revision for the 1928 BCP resulted in several different suggested forms, put forward by the Catholic parties of the Church of England, although it seems the Evangelicals were satisfied with the 1662 BCP and did not put forward any suggestions for reform. The suggested new forms included the official proposal put forward by the National Assembly of the Church of England (1927), which in essence became the BCP of 1928, and several other external productions. These were known as the ‘Green’, ‘Grey’ and ‘Orange’ books, because of the colour of their covers, with each representing attempts by various parties within the Church of England to produce the definitive prayer book. Details of these groups can be found in Cuming (1982: 169) and Jasper (1989: 115-116) however it is useful to look at one of these books – the Green Book – to show that some within the Church of England wanted more realism than the 1928 book allowed. The Green Book was the work of the English Church Union and was properly entitled A Suggested Prayer Book, and had originally been published in 1922. This prayer book had a decidedly Anglo-Catholic tone (Cuming, 1982: 169). The eucharistic liturgy in this book resembled that of the official proposal but had some significant departures from that text. The Prayer of Consecration was known as ‘The Canon’ (A Suggested Prayer Book, 1922: 349-351) in which the one oblation of the cross was affirmed, however this was followed by an epiclesis, before the institution narrative, in almost identical words to the one found towards the end of the Prayer of Consecration in the 1928 BCP. The anamnesis however was significantly different to that of 1928, since it said:

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here, before thy divine Majesty, the holy, pure, and spotless oblation which thy Son hath commanded us to make, and having in remembrance his blessed passion, mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension, we offer unto thee these thy sacred gifts, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Cup of everlasting salvation.” (A Suggested Prayer Book, 1922: 350).

The linking between the sign and the signified is less restrained in this version. The bread and wine of the Eucharist is described as a ‘holy, pure and spotless oblation’ suggesting that the offering of the bread and wine was an oblation in addition to the offering of Christ, even though the once only nature of the offering had been stated at the beginning of the Canon. The elements were also specifically offered to God, suggesting again that the bread and the wine were the means of eternal life and everlasting salvation. The Agnus Dei (not included in 1928) was also included after the Canon, being said in the presence of the consecrated bread and wine. This was followed by the Prayer of Humble Access, the Invitation, the Confession, the Absolution and the Comfortable Words, all said in the presence of the consecrated elements. This followed the pattern of the 1549 BCP and heightened the sense of eucharistic adoration, as prayer was offered in the presence of the consecrated elements. Reservation was permitted for the sick, but there was no restrictions on eucharistic adoration as were present in the 1928 BCP.

A Suggested Prayer Book (1922) puts forward a developed realist theology of the Eucharist which, more developed that put forward in the 1928 BCP, but this is expressed to a moderate degree. The form of the Canon published A Suggested Prayer Book (1922) was rejected by Convocation of the Church of England. The resulting 1928 BCP, a matter of some compromise which pleased no one (Cuming, 1982: 179), was opposed by both the Evangelicals and the Anglo-Catholics for what Cuming describes as “diametrically opposite reasons” (Cuming, 1982: 171). It is not unreasonable to argue that part of this opposition related to the philosophical underpinnings of the Eucharist, the Evangelicals objecting the realist theology of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist and the Anglo-Catholics objecting to what they saw as muted realism (e.g. denial of continual reservation of the sacrament). Despite the failure of the 1928 BCP to pass through the English Parliament, even though it was approved by the Church Assembly, the book represents a significant development in eucharistic theology, establishing more firmly moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist as was the case in several other parts of the Anglican Communion, such as Scotland, South Africa and the United States of America.

Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure, 1965

Series 1

The Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure came into force in England on 1 May, 1966 (Alternative Services: First Series, 1966: Preface). This measure allowed for material from the 1928 BCP, which was in use in many churches in England, to be used with approval. This material included the Summary of the Law, the Prayer for the Church, Proper Prefaces and the Prayer of Oblation from 1662 being used immediately after the Prayer of Consecration. Alternative Services: First Series notes that the Prayer of Consecration from the 1928 BCP was little used in England and so this prayer is not included. This means that the Prayer of Oblation was said in the presence of the consecrated elements, and the meaning could be taken that “this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” and the offering of self could be identified with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Such identification was prevented in the 1662 BCP because the Prayer of Oblation in that prayer book was not said until the bread and wine had been consumed. This saying of the Prayer of Oblation in the presence of the consecrated elements heightens the sense of realism, in that the bread and wine is more strongly associated with the idea of oblation. No specific epiclesis was however placed in the now lengthened Prayer of Consecration, as had been the case in the 1928 BCP.

Series 2

In 1966 a second series of services was authorised under the Prayer Book (Alternative and Other Services) Measure of 1965 (Alternative Services Second Series, 1966). The prayer of consecration, now known as ‘The Thanksgiving’, reflecting the nomenclature of the modern liturgical movement, and used a form of words very different from either the 1662 or 1928 pattern, but reflecting them in part. The epiclesis closely identified the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ, reflecting the 1928 epiclesis, but without any specific invocation of the Holy Spirit, saying:

“grant that these gifts of bread and wine may be unto us his Body and Blood” (Alternative Services, Second Series, 1966: 8).

This was a tentative move, since the Holy Spirit was not mentioned at this point, but nonetheless there was a clear identification of sign with signified in a moderate realist manner. The anamnesis also identified the signs of bread and wine with the signified sacrifice of Christ, saying:

“Wherefore, O Lord, with this bread and this cup we make the memorial of his saving passion, his resurrection from the dead, and his glorious ascension into heaven, and we look for the coming of his kingdom.” (Alternative Services, Second Series, 1966: 9).

The mighty acts of Christ are identified with the memorial that is made with the bread and wine of the Eucharist. The original words of the anamnesis in Series 2 had included the words, “We offer unto thee this bread and this cup” (Cuming, 1982: 208) thereby making a specific statement of an oblation or offering to God. These words were the subject of some discussion (e.g. Houlden, 1966; Couratin, 1966; Moreton, 1966; Cuming, 1966; Beckwith, 1966; and Beckwith and Buchanan, 1967) from both Catholics and Evangelical Anglicans, and resulted in the abandoning of the original proposal and the substitution of the form quoted above. The reasons for the rejection of the original phrase really concern the philosophical understandings inherent in the implied eucharistic theology concerned with the offering of bread and wine to God. This owes as much to Evangelical opinion, rejecting the idea that humans can offer anything to God, as it does to Catholic opinion, which sees the idea of offering bread and wine to God as an inadequate expression of Catholic theology (Houlden, 1966). Houlden argues that “the bare God-ward/man-ward distinction is crude and inadequate when applied to eucharistic doctrine” since “the whole initiative is God’s: but when man responds – yet only in and through Christ; and man’s goal is God” (Houlden, 1966: 435). To simply use the words ‘we offer this bread and this cup’ misses the deeper philosophical issue, because “it does not truthfully say in plain English what is taking place” (Houlden, 1966: 435). Simply offering bread and wine is not therefore what is meant, since God has no need of bread and wine. The words then are sort of shorthand for the offering people make in the Eucharist as they participate by grace and through faith in the offering of Christ. As Houlden explains: “The whole act of giving thanks over and receiving bread and wine is the means whereby this is ‘earthed’ – brought into history and human life: it is the whole act, its total setting and symbolism, which does this, not any single part of it” (Houlden, 1966: 435). Houlden’s argument here is that of moderate realism. Simply offering bread and wine as a sole act of value in the Eucharist smacks of immoderate realism, where the particulars of bread and wine are seen to achieve some value before God. Using and offering the bread and wine as a particular instantiation of the universal sacrificial work of Christ, places the emphasis on the universal rather than the particular and establishes that the particular is an instantiation of the universal, rather than viewing the particular as if it was the universal. Houlden’s argument ‘earths’ the particular in a universal in a moderate realist sense.

Series 3

In 1971 a third seriesof services was published as a report of the Church of England Liturgical Commission to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (Alternative Services, Series 3, 1971). Again a new prayer entitled ‘The Thanksgiving’ was included and this again presented realist ideas in relation to eucharistic presence and sacrifice. The epiclesis in Series 3 included reference to the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the people (Alternative Services, Series 3, 1971: 25) and words which asked:

“grant that these gifts of bread and wine may be to us his body and his blood.” (Alternative Services, Series 3, 1971: 28).

The anamnesis included an oblation and said:

“Therefore, heavenly Father, we do this in remembrance of him: with this bread and this cup we celebrate his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross; we proclaim his resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven; and we look for the fullness of his coming in glory. Accept this our sacrifice of thanks and praise; and as we eat and drink these holy gifts in the presence of your divine majesty, renew us by your Spirit, inspire us with your love, and united us in the body of your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Alternative Services, Series 3, 1971: 29).

The remembrance is done with the bread and wine, but the celebration of the sacrifice of Christ is clearly moderate realist since the ‘once for all upon the cross’ words rule out any suggestion that the sacrifice of Christ is re-iterated or added to in the Eucharist. The mighty acts of Christ are also identified with the making of the memorial using the bread and the wine. Sign and signified are linked in a moderate realist fashion.

The Alternative Service Book, 1980

In 1975 the Worship and Doctrine Measure came into force in the Church of England, allowing the development of new forms of service within that church and giving them legal status. The prayer book resulting from this process was known as The Alternative Service Book 1980 (ASB). The eucharistic liturgies of the ASB drew on what had been learnt from the earlier experimentation with the First, Second and Third Series of alternative services, and produced a prayer book which together with the 1662 BCP became the official liturgy of the Church of England for the next twenty years. Two eucharistic rites are found in ASB – Rite A, a modern language liturgy and Rite B, a traditional language liturgy based on Series 1 and Series 2.

In Rite A a moderate realist position is adopted. The epiclesis of the First Eucharistic Prayer states: “grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit these gifts of bread and wine may be to us his body and his blood” (ASB, 1980: 131) thereby suggesting a realist link between the signs of bread and wine and the signified body and blood of Christ. This pattern is repeated in the Second Eucharistic Prayer (ASB, 1980: 134) and the Third Eucharistic Prayer (ASB, 1980: 137), however a different form, retaining much of the 1662 BCP, is found in the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer where the epiclesis says:

“grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit we who receive these gifts of your creation, this bread and wine, according to your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of the death that he suffered, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood.” (ASB, 1980: 140).

Here the emphasis is on partaking of Christ’s body and blood and not on the bread and wine ‘being’ the body and blood of Christ. The bread and wine is still however, identified with the body and blood of Christ in a moderate realist manner.

The anamnesis of Rite A was also generally expressed in a moderate realist manner where the bread and wine of the Eucharist was linked with the sacrifice of Christ. In the First Eucharistic Prayer the words: “we celebrate with this bread and this cup his one perfect sacrifice” (ASB, 1980: 132) were used, following Series 3, whereas in the Second Eucharistic Prayer the anamnesis read in part: “we make with this bread and this cup the memorial of Christ your Son our Lord” (ASB, 1980: 135) following Series 2. The Third Eucharistic Prayer was less realist, being developed by Evangelicals and reflecting more reference to the atonement (Jasper and Bradshaw, 1986: 230) and less identification of the signs with the signified. The anamnesis of this Third Eucharistic Prayer reads:

“And so, Father, calling to mind his death on the cross, his perfect sacrifice made once for the sins of all men, rejoicing at his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming in glory, we celebrate this memorial of our redemption; We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you; we bring before you this bread and this cup; We pray you to accept this our duty and service, a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” (ASB, 1980: 138).

Here the emphasis is less on celebrating with bread and wine or making a memorial with bread and wine, but on calling to mind the one perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross and at the same time doing this recalling in the presence of the bread and wine, without any specific linking to the sacrifice of Christ or any offering of the bread and wine. The only sacrificial reference is to that of praise and thanksgiving, as is also the case in the 1662 BCP. This form is much less realist than the previous two and seems even to suggest a nominalist separation of sign and signified. This needs however, to be balanced against the idea that ‘bringing before you bread and wine’ has the same meaning as ‘offering bread and wine’ (Burge, 1995: 6, note 58), however it may be that most Evangelicals would reject this interpretation.

In the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer, however, the words of the anamnesis read:

“Therefore, Lord and heavenly Father, in remembrance of the precious death and passion, the mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, of your dear Son Jesus Christ, we offer you through him this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” (ASB, 1980: 141).

This anamnesis follows directly after the institution narrative, and so there is a closer association of the ‘sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ with the bread and wine of the Eucharist than there was in the Third Eucharistic Prayer. This suggests a moderate realist interpretation since the eucharistic prayer does not exclude the possibility that the ‘sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’, where ‘offer’ refers to the bread and wine, and not just to the recalling of a past event with an offering of grateful praise and thanksgiving for a past and completed event, is linked to the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

The Rite B forms of the Eucharist present a less realist expression of eucharistic presence and sacrifice than the Rite A forms. The First Thanksgiving of Rite B (ASB, 1980: 190-192) owes much to the eucharistic prayer of Series 1 and is also very similar to the Fourth Eucharistic Prayer of Rite A, whereas the Second Thanksgiving of Rite B (ASB, 1980: 193-195) is a direct descendent of the eucharistic prayer of Series 2 (Jasper and Bradshaw, 1986: 259-260).

The result that was The Alternative Service (1980) confirms that within the Church of England there were significantly different models of eucharistic theology and underlying philosophical understandings. Both realist (in most of the eucharistic prayers) and nominalist (in the Third Eucharistic Prayer of Rite A at least) understandings seem to be accepted, even though the greater emphasis is on realism rather than nominalism. The realist understandings of eucharistic presence and sacrifice vary both in relation to the epiclesis and anamnesis, suggesting that, within the Church of England, different levels of realist intensity can be tolerated within the one prayer book.

Common Worship, 2000

In 2000 the Church of England published a new generation of liturgical material entitled Common Worship: Prayers and Services for the Church of England. Part of this new book was entitled The Order for the Celebration of Holy Communion also called The Eucharist and The Lord’s Supper. Two order of the Eucharist were produced – Order One and Order Two. Both were presented in contemporary and traditional language with Order One having the shape and structure of the modern style Eucharist entitled Rite A in the ASB (1980), while Order Two has the shape and structure of the Eucharist in the 1662 BCP.

In Order One (contemporary) eight eucharistic prayers (A-H) are used. The following comments relate to the epiclesis of these prayers:

•Eucharistic Prayers A, B, E, F, G, and H present a moderate realist expression where the Holy Spirit is invoked and words such as: “grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit these gifts of bread and wine may be to us his body and blood” (Common Worship, 2000: 185) are used. Here the signs of bread and wine are clearly linked with the signified body and blood of Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit in a moderate realist fashion.

•In Eucharistic Prayer C the link between sign and signified is less pronounced in a realist sense. The words of the epiclesis read: “and grant that, by the power of your Holy Spirit, we receiving these gifts of your creation, this bread and wine, according to your Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood” (Common Worship, 2000: 192). The echo of 1662 BCP is found here as well as the emphasis on ‘receiving’ and ‘partaking’, with the result that the link between the sign and the signified is less pronounced.

•In Eucharistic Prayer D a new form of epiclesis is found, expressed in realist language. It reads: “Send you Spirit on us now that by these gifts we may feed on Christ with opened eyes and hearts on fire” (Common Worship, 2000: 195). Despite the arresting nature of these words, they nonetheless affirm a moderate realism where the gifts are the means of feeding on Christ, although the action of the Holy Spirit refers only to the people and not to the bread and wine.

The following comments relate to the anamnesis of Eucharistic Prayers A-H in Order One (contemporary):

•Eucharistic Prayer A links the signs of bread and wine with the memorial of Christ, saying: “with this bread and this cup we make the memorial of Christ your Son our Lord” (Common Worship, 2000: 186).

•Eucharistic Prayer B (Common Worship, 2000: 188-190) emphasises the atonement, the offering of thanks and praise and the seemingly unlinked bringing before God of bread and wine, with the purpose of this ‘bringing before’ undefined.

•In Eucharistic Prayer C the words “we offer you through him this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” (Common Worship, 2000: 193) leaves the sacrifice as one of praise and thanksgiving without any linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified sacrifice of Christ. This prayer expresses a theology which is less realist than the others in relation to the anamnesis.

•In Eucharistic Prayer D however a specific linking of the sign with the signified occurs, but the stated ‘signified’ seems only to be the death of Christ. This appears to be a new form, saying: “Therefore, Father, with this bread and this cup we celebrate the cross on which he died to set us free. Defying death he rose again and is alive with you to plead for us and all the world” (Common Worship, 2000: 195). The link between the bread and cup and the cross is realist, but the link between the bread and cup and the other mighty acts of Christ (resurrection and pleading) is less clear.

•In Eucharistic Prayer E a generalised expression of the mighty acts of Christ is stated, saying: “So, Father, we remember all that Jesus did” (Common Worship, 2000: 197). This is followed by a realist linking of the pleading of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist with the cross – “in him we plead with confidence his sacrifice made once for all upon the cross” and then a specific linking of signs with the signified mighty acts: “Bringing before you the bread of life and cup of salvation, we proclaim his death and resurrection until he comes in glory” (Common Worship, 2000: 197).

•In Eucharistic Prayer F, the institution narrative is followed by the following: “Therefore we proclaim the death that he suffered on the cross, we celebrate his resurrection, his bursting from the tomb, we rejoice that he reigns at your right hand on high and we long for his coming in glory” (Common Worship, 2000: 199) suggesting that the actions with the bread and wine in the institution narrative are, therefore, the means of proclaiming the action of Christ on the cross, in the resurrection and in the coming again. This suggests a realist linking of sign and signified.

•This idea is expressed again in Eucharistic Prayer G where the following is found following the institution narrative: “Father, we plead with confidence his sacrifice made once for all upon the cross; we remember his dying and rising in glory, and we rejoice that he intercedes for us at your right hand” (Common Worship, 2000: 203).

•Eucharistic Prayer H links the epiclesis and anamnesis in a realist manner, saying: “As we proclaim his death and celebrate his rising in glory, send your Holy Spirit that this bread and wine may be to us the body and blood of your dear Son. (All) As we eat and drink these holy gifts make us one in Christ, our risen Lord. With the whole Church throughout the world we offer you this sacrifice of praise” (Common Worship, 2000: 205). The close association of the wording relating to the bread and wine ‘being’ the body and blood of Christ and the ‘offering’ of thanks and praise suggests a realist linking of the signs (bread and wine/church) with the signified (mighty acts of Christ, including his sacrifice).

Common Worship (2000) generally presents a realist understanding of the Eucharist as indicated by an examination of the epiclesis and anamnesis in each of the eucharistic prayers. As regards the epiclesis prayers, A and D-H are clearly realist, with B and C presenting a theology where the sign and the signified are not specifically linked. The same pattern is followed as regards the anamnesis, with prayer B and C not specifically linking the offering of bread and wine or the mighty acts of Christ with the signs of the Eucharist, while the other prayers present a realist view to varying degrees. Common Worship (2000) accords with what seems to be the diverse tradition of Anglicanism in regard to the philosophical underpinnings of the Eucharist employed seemingly by both Catholics and Evangelicals. Common Worship (2000) therefore sets out specifically realist form of the eucharistic prayer to suit Catholic Anglicans and specifically less realist forms of the eucharistic prayer to suit Evangelical Anglicans. This conclusion is supported by an analysis of Order One (Traditional) where the two eucharistic prayers used (Prayer A and Prayer C) are distinctly different in theology and philosophical underpinnings. Eucharistic Prayer A is clearly realist (Common Worship, 2000: 216-218) and Prayer C (Common Worship, 2000: 219-221) is much less realist. Prayer A prays in a distinctly realist sense, linking sign and signified, that “these gifts of bread and wine may be to us his body and blood” (Common Worship, 2000: 217) whereas Prayer C prays that “by the power of the Holy Spirit, we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood” (Common Worship, 2000: 220). Both appear to be realist but in Prayer C it is in the receiving in the power of the Holy Spirit that the communicant is a partaker of Christ’s body and blood, not so much by a realist linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ.

The same pattern is followed in the anamnesis of Order One (Traditional). Prayer A links sign and signified by reciting the mighty acts of Christ and praying that “with this bread and this cup we make the memorial of Christ thy Son our Lord” (Common Worship, 2000: 217). It is with the signs of bread and wine that the memorial of Christ is made. Prayer C recounts the mighty acts of Christ and offers the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving (Common Worship, 2000: 221) but does not link the acts or the offering (the signified) with the signs in a realist manner. There is however a sense that the Eucharist is a “perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again” (Common Worship, 2000: 220). This echoes 1662 BCP but does not adequately define the meaning of ‘perpetual’ or ‘memory’ and it remains uncertain whether this means ‘bringing to mind’ in the context of the Eucharist or whether ‘perpetual’ is suggesting a realist sense of Christ’s sacrifice being linked with the Eucharist or the elements as a pleading of the sacrifice.

Order Two, traditional and contemporary language (Common Worship, 2000: 81-120) presents the shape and structure of the 1662 BCP eucharistic rite, but also includes some aspects which are often associated with eucharistic liturgies expressing realism (e.g. The Kyries, the word ‘offertory’, the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei). At the same time however, the Prayer of Consecration, is that of BCP 1662, minus epiclesis and anamnesis, possibly suggesting concessions to a less realist interpretation. The continued use of an order so close to that of BCP 1662, suggests that this is an attempt to cater for those who prefer the theology of that book (e.g. emphasis on atonement, lack of reference to mighty acts of God, distinctly Reformed theology, possible realist interpretation in a muted sense) and that the Church of England wishes to provide more than one theological and philosophical position as an alternative in relation to the Eucharist.

Scottish Episcopal Church

The Scottish Episcopal Church has had several versions of its eucharistic liturgy during the twentieth century. The 1929 Scottish Liturgy (Arnold, 1939: 53-86) uses the labels ‘oblation’ and ‘invocation’ in its prayer of consecration, placed at the side. The oblation says:

“ … we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion, and precious death, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, and looking for his coming again with power and great glory.” (The Scottish Liturgy of 1929, in Arnold, 1939: 63)

The gifts of bread and wine are offered to God and specifically identified with the mighty works of Christ as a memorial of those works in a moderate realist fashion.

The ‘invocation’ says:

“And we thine unworthy servants beseech thee, most merciful Father, to hear us, and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that, being blessed and hallowed by his life-giving power, they may become the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto everlasting life.” (The Scottish Liturgy of 1929, in Arnold, 1939: 63).

The bread and wine is said to ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ by the blessing and hallowing action of the Holy Spirit, and to convey the sanctifying and preserving benefits of Christ’s body and blood. This is a moderate realist identification of sign with signified where the word ‘become’ suggests that the bread and wine are changed in some way into the body and blood of Christ.

The Scottish Liturgy of 1970 (Online) uses both the above oblation and invocation, continuing the moderate realist identification of sign with signified in the Eucharist. Both the 1929 and 1970 liturgies refer, following the pattern of earlier Anglican liturgies (such as the 1662 BCP) to the oblation of Christ, once offered and as a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, thus ensuring that no possible interpretation of immoderate realism can be formed. In The Scottish Liturgy of 1982 (Online) however, the pattern of 1662 BCP is not followed in reference to the once and for all oblation of the cross. Instead in the first four of the alternative Eucharistic Prayers the following memorial or anamnesis is found, no longer specifically designated as ‘oblation’:

“We now obey your Son’s command. We recall his blessed passion and death, his glorious resurrection and ascension; and we look for the coming of his Kingdom. Made one with him, we offer you these gifts and with them ourselves, a single, holy, living sacrifice.” (The Scottish Liturgy of 1982, Online, Memorial in Eucharistic Prayers I-IV).

The offering of the gifts is identified with the mighty works of Christ in a moderate realist fashion where sign is linked with signified, but the reference to a ‘living sacrifice’ represents a significant departure from previous liturgies. It could be argued that a ‘living sacrifice’ implies a physical sacrifice and that this wording is suggestive of immoderate realism. Whilst it is unlikely that this is the meaning intended by the framers of The Scottish Liturgy of 1982, the use of the word ‘living’ nonetheless is capable of bearing this meaning. The fifth Eucharistic Prayer is less controversial and says simply:

“Together with him we offer you these gifts: in them we give you ourselves.” (The Scottish Liturgy of 1982, Online, Memorial in Eucharistic Prayer V).

Whilst avoiding the possibility of an immoderate realist sense, the fifth prayer is nonetheless realist to the moderate degree in that it links the gifts with the offering of Christ.

The epiclesis in The Scottish Liturgy of 1982 says:

“Hear us, most merciful Father, and send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon this bread and wine, that, overshadowed by his life-giving power, they may be the Body and Blood of your Son.” (The Scottish Liturgy of 1982, Online, Epiclesis in Eucharistic Prayers I-IV).

The word ‘become’ in The Scottish Liturgy of 1929 and 1970 is changed to ‘be’ in the 1982 liturgy, which is less suggestive of a change in the bread and wine, but nonetheless moderate realist in the identification of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ. The fifth Eucharistic Prayer uses the same idea but in fewer words (The Scottish Liturgy of 1982, Online, Epiclesis in Eucharistic Prayer V). The use of the word ‘be’ could be considered to be an advance over ‘become’, not only because it limits the suggestion of change in the bread and wine in some immoderate realist sense, but also because ‘be’ seems less associated with an empirical or local sense of presence and more in line with the moderate realist sense of real, yet mystical and spiritual. Such a view is frequently found in the writings of Anglican theologians (see the case studies of this project) and as such may accord more with the weight of Anglican tradition and with a philosophy not dependent on empirical concepts.

The Episcopal Church of the United States of America

The history and theology of the American Book of Common Prayer is comprehensively set out in Marion Hatchett’s exhaustive commentary on that prayer book in its several editions (Hatchett, 1980) and Mitchell’s equally useful theological commentary on the American Book of Common Prayer, 1979 (Mitchell, 1985). The details should be sought in these works, however, it is sufficient to note the liturgical history of the Anglican Church in what became the United States of America began with the 1662 BCP. A conservative revision of that prayer book was published in 1786, where the Prayer of Consecration from 1662 was used (American Liturgy of 1786, Online), but this was soon replaced by the Book of Common Prayer, 1789 (American Liturgy of 1789, Online), which owed much to the 1662 BCP and was also influenced by the Scottish Liturgy of 1764 (see Case Study 2.17). Following the consecration of the first bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America, Samuel Seabury, in 1784, by the Scottish bishops (Hatchett, 1980: 359-360) there was impetus in the Episcopal Church of the USA to use the liturgies of the Scottish Episcopal Church or liturgies like them. The 1789 American Book of Common Prayer and subsequent prayer books (American Liturgy of 1892, Online; American Liturgy of 1928; and the eucharistic liturgy of the current American Book of Common Prayer, 1979) all included an invocation or epiclesis and oblation in the anamnesis. The American Liturgy of 1928 (Online) had the following Oblation (specifically labelled Oblation):

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded is to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.” (American Liturgy of 1928, Oblation, Online).

The offered gifts are clearly associated with the mighty acts of Christ, thereby identifying sign with signified in a moderate realist manner and indicating that the benefits of Christ’s work is made available in the Eucharist through the gifts.

The Invocation in the American Liturgy of 1928 reads:

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.” (American Liturgy of 1928, Invocation, Online).

This invocation begins in the manner of the 1764 Scottish Liturgy, asking that the Holy Spirit will bless and sanctify the bread and wine, but stops short of asking that they ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ, as the 1764 liturgy does. The final part of the invocation (‘that we, receiving … blessed Body and Blood’) strongly resembles the 1662 BCP Prayer of Consecration. This pattern had been followed in the American Liturgy of 1789 (Online) and the American Liturgy of 1892 (Online), and seems to represent a restrained moderate realism where the bread and wine is clearly associated with the body and blood of Christ but only in the sense that they allow the partaking of Christ’s body and blood in an undefined manner. The bread and wine as signs are identified with the body and blood of Christ through the action of the Holy Spirit, but the words asking that the signs ‘become’ the signified body and blood of Christ, are not used. This pattern is maintained in the current 1979 American Book of Common Prayer in Rite I Eucharistic Prayer I (BCP of ECUSA, 1979: 333-336). In Rite I Eucharistic Prayer II however, the epiclesis has a fuller form, praying:

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, to bless and sanctify these gifts of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy dearly-beloved Son Jesus Christ.” (BCP of ECUSA, 1979: 342).

The words ‘be unto us’ more specifically link the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ, following the pattern of the 1549 BCP, but not going as far as the 1764 Scottish Liturgy which uses ‘become’, thereby suggesting a change in the bread and wine.

Rite II of the Eucharist in the American BCP (1979) presents an overtly realist theology in its wording for the anamnesis and epiclesis. In Eucharistic Prayer A, the anamnesis reads:

“We celebrate the memorial of our redemption, O Father, in this sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Recalling his death, resurrection, and ascension, we offer you these gifts.” (BCP of ECUSA, 1979: 363).

The gifts of bread and wine are identified with the recalling of the mighty works of Christ in a moderate realist manner and the whole action of the Eucharist as memorial and sacrifice is celebrated in a realist manner.

The wording of the epiclesis in Rite II Eucharistic Prayer A is realist, saying:

“Sanctify them [the bread and wine] by your Holy Spirit to be for your people the Body and Blood of your Son, the holy food and drink of new and unending life in him. Sanctify us also that we may faithfully receive this holy Sacrament, and serve you in unity, constancy, and peace.” (BCP of ECUSA, 1979: 363).

Here the bread and wine is specifically sanctified by the action of the Holy Spirit such that they ‘be for your people’ the body and blood of Christ. This is a clear realist identification of sign with signified and cannot be confused with any spiritual action in people, since there is a separate epiclesis for the people which follows in the second sentence of the epiclesis.

The American Book of Common Prayer (1979) present a clear realist theology of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist through the wording of both the epiclesis and anamnesis and in the expression of an oblation over the bread and wine. Sign and signified are identified with one another in a moderate realist fashion.

The Church of the Province of Southern Africa

The South African Rite of 1929 presents a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist. The Consecration is in the form of the extended prayer, that is, with the prayer of oblation part of the prayer of consecration (Arnold, 1939: 121-123). The words of the anamnesis read:

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, do render unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same; and, looking for his coming again with power and great glory, we offer here unto thy divine majesty this holy bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation.” (South African Rite of 1929, in Arnold, 1939: 122).

The mighty acts of Christ are remembered in the context of the Eucharist and the gifts of bread and wine, described as holy, are offered to God. The words of the epiclesis are also moderate realist, saying:

“and we humbly beseech thee to pour thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts, that all we who are partakers of this holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son, and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction.” (South African Rite of 1929, in Arnold, 1939: 122).

The Holy Spirit is invoked upon the gifts but only in the sense of the worthy partaking of communion, there being no words which suggest that the action of the Holy Spirit changes the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The wording of both the anamnesis and epiclesis remain unchanged in the 1954 South African Prayer Book (see The South African Liturgy, 1954 in Wigan, 1962: 73-81) however this changes significantly with the introduction of a new prayer book in 1989 for the Province of Southern Africa (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989). Here the epiclesis of the First Eucharistic Prayer prays for God to:

“send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts of bread and wine so that they may be to us his body and blood.” (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989: 118).

The 1989 rite clearly moves past the worthy reception idea of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and speaks of the bread and wine specifically being Christ’s body and blood. This idea is continued in the Second Eucharistic Prayer where the epiclesis identifies the signs of the bread and wine with Christ’s body and blood and says:

“grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit these gifts of bread and wine may be to us his body and blood.” (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989: 120).

The epiclesis of the Third Eucharistic Prayer is even more realist and suggests that there is a change in the bread and wine brought about by the action of the Holy Spirit when it prays:

“Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989: 123).

The signs of bread and wine are here said to ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ. This prayer is in fact Eucharistic Prayer II from the Roman Catholic Missal (The New Sunday Missal, 1982: 402-406).

The 1989 Southern African prayer book also presents a moderate realist conception of sacrifice in its eucharistic prayers. In the First Eucharistic Prayer is found:

“Holy Father, with these your gifts, we your people celebrate before you the one perfect sacrifice of Christ our Lord, his rising from the dead and his ascending to the glory of heaven.” (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989: 119).

In the Second Eucharistic Prayer is found the statement: “we celebrate with this bread and this cup his one perfect sacrifice” (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989: 121), while the Third Eucharistic Prayer uses the oblation from the Roman Catholic Missal, saying:

“In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.” (An Anglican Prayer Book, 1989: 124).

The Fourth Eucharistic Prayer gives the alternatives of ‘offer’ and ‘bring before’ when it speaks of the bread and wine being, presumably to allow those who choose not to use the word ‘offer’ to use the alternative ‘bring before’, perhaps in the hope that this lessens the sense of oblation in the Eucharist. Despite this it seems that the words of anamnesis and oblation used in the Southern African prayer book identify the offering of the signs of bread and wine with the offering of Christ.

The Churches of North and South India

The Church of South India approved The Book of Common Worship in 1961 and it was authorised for use in 1962 (1964 edition used in this case study). Part of this prayer book was An Order for the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist which dated back to the early 1950’s and has been discussed in some detail in a separate introduction and commentary (Garrett, 1954). This liturgy included many of the components traditionally associated with a realist understanding of the Eucharist (e.g. Benedictus, Agnus Dei, epiclesis and anamnesis). The epiclesis reads:

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to sanctify with thy Holy Spirit us and these thine own gifts of bread and wine, that the bread which we break may be the communion of the body of Christ, and the cup which we bless the communion of the blood of Christ.” (Church of South India, The Book of Common Worship, 1964: 16-17).

The Holy Spirit is clearly invoked in order to sanctify the bread and wine, but the bread and wine is identified with ‘the communion of the body of Christ’ and ‘the communion of the blood of Christ’, rather than with the ‘body’ and ‘blood’ of Christ. Garrett (1954: 66-68) argues that this is done in order to avoid any idea of a moment of consecration and to affirm the idea that the root idea in the Eucharist is the setting apart of bread and wine and the moving forward to communion. It is this idea of communion therefore which links the signs with the signified in a realist manner.

The anamnesis states:

“Wherefore, O Father, having in remembrance the precious death and passion, and glorious resurrection and ascension, of thy Son our Lord, we thy servants do this in remembrance of him, as he hath commanded, until his coming again, giving thanks to thee for the perfect redemption which thou hast wrought for us in him.” (Church of South India, The Book of Common Worship, 1964: 16).

The mighty acts of Christ are held in remembrance as ‘this’ is done in remembrance of Christ. ‘This’ is not specifically defined, although it seems that it most likely refers back to the previous paragraph which contained the institution narrative. ‘This’ therefore seems to refer to the commemoration of Christ’s death in the Eucharist. It is in this sense that the anamnesis expresses a realist identification of sign with signified. This is confirmed by Garrett who argues that if the Hebrew and biblical idea of remembrance (anamnesis) was in Jesus’ mind at the Last Supper, then “he must clearly have intended a concrete act of remembrance of himself and of his sacrifice which would be the means of his being present in the midst of his disciples in living power” (Garrett, 1954: 66).

The Church of North India published in 1973 An Order for the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist (1974 edition used in this case study). The anamnesis specifically links the signs of bread and wine with the mighty acts of Christ, saying:

“Therefore, heavenly Father, in remembrance of him we set apart this bread and this cup; we celebrate and proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross, his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven; and we look for his coming again.” (Church of North India, An Order for the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist, 1974: 22).

The bread and wine are set apart and it is with them that the celebration and proclamation of the mighty acts of Christ take place. The ‘Thanksgiving’ goes on to pray: “Accept through him, our great high priest, this our sacrifice of thanks and praise” (Church of North India, An Order for the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist, 1974: 22) thereby suggesting that the Eucharist is the sacrifice of thanks of praise. These words are said before the reception of the elements and so cannot refer only to a sacrifice of thanks and praise offered in thanks for gifts received. The sacrifice of thanks and praise, which is the Eucharist, is therefore offered to God and God is asked to ‘accept’ this sacrifice.

The epiclesis is realist but in an ecclesial sense, praying:

“and as we eat and drink these holy gifts in the presence of your divine majesty, renew us by your Spirit, inspire us with your love, and unite us in the body of your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Church of North India, An Order for the Lord’s Supper or the Holy Eucharist, 1974: 22).

The realist linking here is between the gifts of bread and wine and renewal by the Spirit as well as in the body of Christ (that is, the Church).

The Church of Ireland

The Church of Ireland traditionally has used the 1871 revised form of the 1662 BCP (Alternative Prayer Book, 1984: 7) but has also published in 1984 a new prayer book entitled, Alternative Prayer Book. The eucharistic liturgies in the Alternative Prayer Book of 1984 will be examined in this case study. The epiclesis and anamnesis in the rite entitled The Holy Communion are as follows:

“Therefore, Father, with this bread and this cup we do as Christ your Son commanded: we remember his passion and death, we celebrate his resurrection and ascension, and we look for the coming of his kingdom. Accept through him this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; and as we eat and drink these holy gifts, grant that by the power of the life-giving Spirit that we may be made one in your holy Church and partakers of the body and blood of your son, that he may dwell in us and we in him.” (Alternative Prayer Book, 1984: 55).

The signs (the bread and cup) are identified with the remembering, the celebrating and the looking and are described as ‘our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ in a clearly realist manner. The power of the Holy Spirit is invoked over the eating and drinking of the gifts and the people (not specifically the bread and wine but the eating and drinking of them) such that those who receive communion are ‘partakers of the body and blood’ of Christ. There is a clear realist identification of sign and signified in the epiclesis and anamnesis. In an alternative form of the eucharistic prayer the anamnesis is plainly realist, but the epiclesis is less clearly so. The anamnesis reads:

“Father, with this bread and this cup, we do as our Saviour has commanded; we celebrate the redemption he has won for us; we proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and we look for his coming to fulfil all things according to your will.” (Alternative Prayer Book, 1984: 61).

The epiclesis however is in ecclesial form, stating:

“Renew us by your Holy Spirit, unite us in the body of your Son and bring us with all your people into the joy of your eternal kingdom.” (Alternative Prayer Book, 1984: 61).

The Alternative Prayer Book of the Church of Ireland presents a realist understanding of eucharistic presence and sacrifice, identifying sign with signified and doing this in a moderate realist manner by referring to the once for all nature of Christ sacrifice on the cross, but at the same time linking the signs of bread and wine with the celebration of that sacrifice in the present in the Eucharist.

The Church of Ireland published a new prayer book in 2004 entitled The Book of Common Prayer (Online). The eucharistic liturgies in this prayer book are in two forms – Holy Communion 1 (a modern revision of the 1662 BCP liturgy) and Holy Communion 2 (a modern eucharistic liturgy). Reference to only Holy Communion 2 will be made in this case study.

Holy Communion 2 is also referred to as the Eucharist and is presented in the shape of modern eucharistic liturgies. Signs of realist philosophical assumptions are present in this eucharistic liturgy. Prayers are set out for the placement of the bread and wine on the table asking “Be present, be present, Lord Jesus Christ” to “make yourself known in the breaking of bread” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 5, Online). This suggests that Christ is present is known and made present in the sacramental action of the Eucharist. This is followed by a section called ‘The taking of the bread and wine’ where the president says, while holding the bread and wine, “Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us” and the people respond, “therefore let us celebrate the feast” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 6, Online), thereby suggesting that the sacrifice of Christ and its celebration are associated with the bread and wine. Both of these aspects are suggestive of realist philosophical assumptions underlying the eucharistic theology of the liturgy.

Three eucharistic prayers are given as alternatives in Holy Communion 2. In all there is the clear affirmation of the one sacrifice of Christ and that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are spiritual food, thereby denying immoderate notions of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice and expressing a eucharistic theology based on moderate realist assumptions. The Eucharist is described as “a perpetual memory of his precious death” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 6, Online) where people do as Christ commanded and remember his passion and death while at the same time celebrating his resurrection and ascension and looking forward to his coming again. This anamnesis together with the use of the Benedictus in Prayer 1 are suggestive of moderate realism. Eating and drinking of “these holy gifts” is seen as “our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving” and it is by the gifts that people are “made one in your holy Church” and “partakers of the body and blood of Christ” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 7, Online). This also suggests moderate realism. A similar analysis of Prayer 2 (BCP, 2004, HC2: 7-10) also suggests that moderate realist philosophical assumptions underlie the eucharistic theology of this prayer, although no Benedictus is printed in this prayer.

Prayer 3 (BCP, 2004, HC2: 10-11) also present moderate realist assumptions. Any notions of immoderate realism are denied since the prayer states that Christ “made the perfect sacrifice for sin” but at the same time affirms that Christ, in the context of the Eucharist, is “the bread of life” and “the true vine” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 10, Online). The epiclesis of Prayer 3 is strongly realist since it says “Holy Spirit, giver of life, come upon us now; may this bread and wine be to us the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 10, Online). This epiclesis links the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in a moderate realist manner and goes on to also make an ecclesial link between bread and wine and the fact that the people are one in Christ. The whole eucharistic action is described as a “sacrifice of thanks and praise” (BCP, 2004, HC2: 11, Online) which suggests that the eucharistic action is more than a mere remembering of past and completed event.

Holy Communion 2 also allows for the singing of the Agnus Dei after the bread of the bread or during Communion, thereby also suggesting the real presence of Christ in a moderate realism manner.

The Book of Common Prayer (2004) of the Church of Ireland in Holy Communion 2 presents a eucharistic theology which contains moderate realist assumptions about Christ’s presence and sacrifice. Thanksgiving Prayers 1 and 2 are muted in their moderate realism but Prayer 3 seems to present a more strongly realist eucharistic theology especially in the form of words used for the epiclesis.

The Anglican Church of Canada

The Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada was published in 1985 (1989 edition used in this case study). This prayer book uses both a modern eucharistic liturgy and also a Eucharist in the language of the Canadian Book of Common Prayer of 1962. The 1962 rite contains two eucharistic prayers, A and B, both being clearly realist, with B more obviously realist than A. Eucharistic Prayer A in its anamnesis speaks in a restrained way of making the memorial which Christ has commanded before God with bread and wine, thereby linking the signs of bread and wine with the memorial, but stops short of identifying the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in the epiclesis. The work of the Holy Spirit is invoked on the partakers of the communion so that they may be filled with grace and heavenly blessing, but not on the bread and wine specifically (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 242-243). Eucharistic Prayer B however follows closely the pattern of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, praying in the epiclesis that “these gifts of bread and wine” “may be unto us the body and blood of thy dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ” (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 244). Clearly the signs of bread and wine are linked with the signified body and blood of Christ in a realist manner. In the anamnesis,Eucharistic Prayer B prays:

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy people do celebrate and make, with these thy holy gifts which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and looking for his coming again with power and great glory.” (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 244).

Here there is a clear realist linking between the signs of bread and wine and the memorial and mighty acts of Christ. The gifts are offered to God as an oblation and it is with them that the memorial is celebrated and made.

In the modern eucharistic liturgy there are six eucharistic prayers, each of which express a realist theology of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. The Holy Spirit is invoked over both the people and the bread and wine so that “all who eat and drink at this table may be one body and one holy people” (Eucharistic Prayer 1, Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 195). This is an epiclesis which seems to focus the work of the Spirit on the ecclesial function of the people of God. Although the prayer prays for God to “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts” (Eucharistic Prayer 1, Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 195) the bread and wine is not specifically said to be the body and blood of Christ. This pattern is followed in Eucharistic Prayer 4 (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 203). In another prayer the epiclesis reads however: “Send your Holy Spirit upon these gifts that they may be the sacrament of the body of Christ and his blood of the new covenant” (Eucharistic Prayer 3, Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 199). The identification between the signs of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ is clearly realist in this case. The moderate realist nature of the presence of Christ’s body and blood is emphasised by using the term ‘sacrament of the body of Christ’. In Eucharistic Prayer 6 the epiclesis becomes: “Father, we pray that in your goodness and mercy your Holy Spirit may descend upon us, and upon these gifts, sanctifying them and showing them to be holy gifts for your people, the bread of life and the cup of salvation, the body and blood of your Son Jesus Christ” (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 209). The realist linking of sign and signified is clearly expressed in this form.

The anamnesis of the modern eucharistic liturgy links sign and signified in a realist manner with a clear expression of oblation and a recalling of the mighty works of Christ. Eucharistic Prayer 1 states: “Recalling his death, proclaiming his resurrection, and looking for his coming again in glory, we offer you, Father, this bread and this cup” (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 195). Eucharistic Prayer 2 prays: “Send your Holy Spirit upon us and upon this offering of your Church, that we who eat and drink at this holy table may share the divine life of Christ the Lord” (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 203). Eucharistic Prayer 5 asks that “with this bread and wine we celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus, and we offer ourselves to you in him” (Book of Alternative Services, 1989: 205). The signs of bread and wine, and the people themselves, are offered to God in the Eucharist, with these signs identified with the signified death and resurrection of Christ. Realism is the predominant motif in the eucharistic theology of these eucharistic prayers in the Alternative Services Book of the Anglican Church of Canada.

In the Preface to the Eucharist in the Canadian Alternative Services Book (1989: 174-182) some specific comments deserve mention. Here the following comments are found regarding offering:

“In the eucharistic prayer the Church expresses the meaning of the whole eucharistic action in which the memorial of redemption is made, and the Church is united with Christ in offering and communion through the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit.” (Alternative Services Book, 1989: 178).

The offering of Christ is linked with offering in the Eucharist in a realist manner. This however is done in a way which avoids immoderate realism and nominalism. The Preface says:

“In the Middle Ages and the Reformation period these images [vicarious suffering of Christ on behalf of people; Jesus’ death as sin-offering; Jesus’ death and resurrection as an act of divine deliverance from sin and death] were given more precise definition with the use of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘substitutionary’ language. Jesus’ death was interpreted as a satisfaction for sin, or as an act of legal substitution. According to the latter idea, Jesus, although innocent, stood in the divine courtroom in the place of guilty sinners and suffered the sentence and punishment of death for our sins. As a result, Christians are acquitted of their sins and accounted righteous. In Cranmer’s eucharistic prayer the language of sin-offering and satisfaction are linked in the phrase, ‘full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction’. In the revised Canadian eucharistic prayers, on the other hand, the images of vicarious suffering, sacrifice, and divine deliverance have been employed without binding them to the later medieval and Reformation themes of atonement.” (Alternative Services Book, 1989: 179).

In practice this means that Jesus death and resurrection are linked with the Eucharist and with the bread and wine offered in the Eucharist, but without the immoderate realist overtones of the Middle Ages and without the nominalist overtones of Cranmer’s eucharistic theology. This lead the Preface to a discussion of ‘eucharistic offering’, which says:

“Another issue closely related to the issue of atonement is that of eucharistic offering. In the early liturgies the language of offering is very fluid, but what it expressed essentially is that the gifts and the community are offered in and through the sacrifice of Christ. The close link between offering and anamnesis (remembrance) in the ancient liturgies makes it clear that the offering of the gifts and the community are entirely dependent upon the one sacrifice of Christ. In the Middle Ages the idea gained ground that the eucharist is a sacrifice in its own right, independent of the sacrifice of the cross. In this context, Cranmer, along with other Reformers, rejected the idea of the sacrifice of the mass, emphasised the once-for-all character of the sacrifice of Christ, and allowed only the offering of ‘praise and thanksgiving’ and of ‘ourselves, our souls and bodies’ in the eucharist. Cranmer and the Reformers were right in insisting on the once-for-all and the ‘full, perfect, and sufficient’ character of the sacrifice of the cross, but Cranmer’s liturgy failed to give adequate expression to the unity between the Church’s offering and the offering of Christ expressed in the ancient liturgies and in the patristic theology of the ‘whole Christ’, head and members. The revision of the Canadian eucharistic prayers has sought to give this latter point clearer expression.” (Alternative Services Book, 1989: 179).

Here then is an expression of moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice. The immoderate realist notions of the Middle Ages are clearly denied, as are the nominalist separation of entities in the Cranmerian theology of the Eucharist, expressed in the 1552 BCP. What is unusual here is that the Anglican Church of Canada has decided to make such a definitive statement of eucharistic theology and the underlying philosophical position of moderate realism in its prayer book. The Preface goes beyond rubric and beyond introduction and enters in eucharistic theology in both an historical and philosophical sense. No other province of the Anglican Communion reviewed in this case study does this.

The Anglican Province of New Zealand

The eucharistic liturgies of the Anglican Province of New Zealand are found in A New Zealand Prayer Book, published in 1989. The words used in the epiclesis in this prayer book express a distinct realist philosophical position in relation to the sign and the signified of the Eucharist. The epiclesis says:

“Send your Holy Spirit that these gifts of bread and wine which we receive may be to us the body and blood of Christ.” (A New Zealand Prayer Book, 1989: 423).

The anamnesis also expresses a realist theology of the Eucharist, saying:

“Therefore loving God, recalling your great goodness to us in Christ, his suffering and death, his resurrection and ascension, and looking for his coming in glory, we celebrate our redemption with this bread of life and this cup of salvation. Accept our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving which we offer through Christ our great high priest.” (A New Zealand Prayer Book, 1989: 423).

The mighty acts of Christ are celebrated with and identified with the signs of the Eucharist. This celebration is described as a ‘sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’, which is not restricted merely to thankful remembrance following communion, but a realist identity of the bread and wine with the mighty work of Christ.

The Anglican Church of Australia

The Book of Common Prayer, 1662

The eucharistic liturgy of the Anglican Church of Australia, until the second half of the twentieth century, was principally the service of Holy Communion as found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

Departures from the norm of the Book of Common Prayer, 1662

There were however some notable departures from this liturgical norm of BCP, 1662. Bishop Reginald Halse, first as Bishop of Riverina, published in 1939 a booklet entitled The Holy Eucharist, otherwise known as ‘The Brown Book’ due to the colour of its cover. Bishop Halse stated in an introduction that the order for the celebration of the Eucharist contained in this booklet was that of the Alternative Order for the Holy Communion as set out in the 1928 BCP. Although based on the 1928 BCP, and therefore including elements such the Kyries, the Benedictus and the extended eucharistic prayer,Halse also made some significant departures from this book. He included, for example, the Agnus Dei and various rubrics and headings, which were not in the 1928 BCP.He used the words ‘The Canon’ (Halse, 1939: 20) before the Sursum Corda and then before the Prayer of Consecration he added the heading ‘The Pleading of the Sacrifice of Christ’ (Halse, 1939: 21). This suggests a moderate realist theology of eucharistic sacrifice. During the Prayer of Consecration he added the headings ‘The Invocation’ (Halse, 1939: 22) and ‘The Oblation’ (Halse, 1939: 24). Strangely the Invocation did not include an invocation of the Holy Spirit and no specific epiclesis was found in the Prayer of Consecration, although the rubric immediately after the heading ‘Prayer of Consecration’ stated that “the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Halse, 1939: 21). The Prayer of Oblation was in the 1928 position (transposed from after Communion to before Communion) and suggested the offering of the bread and wine, consecrated on the altar, to God as part of the praise and thanksgiving. There was no recitation of the mighty acts of Christ. Clearly though, Halse’s liturgy suggested a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and adoration of Christ in the consecrated elements. The ringing of bells during the Prayer of Consecration was intended “to call us to adoration” (Halse, 1939: 23) and the rubric directed that people should “bow your head and say silently to our Lord, present upon his altar throne: Jesus, my Lord, I thee adore” (Halse, 1939: 23).

In a later work entitled Adoremus,originally published in 1946 but still being printed in 1962 in a fifth impression, and otherwise known as ‘The Green Book’ because of the green colour of its cover, Halse added an introduction which commended the form to those who might find it useful. It is not clear whether Halse was the author of this manual or merely providing an introduction to the work of others who names are not stated. Halse however, did add the introduction in 1946 and so Adoremus will be acknowledged here under his name. Adoremus is stated as being based on the 1928 BCP although it does like Halse’s 1939 ‘Brown Book’ make some significant departures from that use. Adoremus did not use the heading ‘The Canon’, as ‘The Brown Book’ had done, but did expand the prayer entitled ‘The Oblation’ to include the mighty works of Christ as an anamnesis where the celebration of these mighty acts was specifically linked with the gifts of bread and wine being “set before thy Divine Majesty” (Halse, 1946/1962: 26). The rubric stating that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ by means of the Holy Spirit was no longer used and no specific consecratory epiclesis was included as 1928 does. In ‘A Note Concerning this Book’ (Halse, 1946/1962: 3-4) the matter of whether to include an epiclesis is discussed. Adoremus opts for not including the epiclesis (in the prayer of consecration) on the basis of doubt “among liturgist as to whether, and if so, where, this prayer should stand in our Rite” (Halse, 1946/1962: 4) and so includes a modified 1928 BCP wording of the epiclesis as a private prayer after the Offertory and before the Intercession. Whereas the 1928 form invokes the Holy Spirit on both the gifts and the people the form used in Adoremus invokes the Holy Spirit on the gifts alone (Halse, 1946/1962: 15) but it does this at the Offertory and not as part of the consecration. Despite this the Prayer of Consecration was in the extended form, minus the epiclesis, with the transposed Prayer of Oblation and the Lord’s Prayer, peace greeting and Agnus Dei, together with various silent prayers, being placed before the Communion. These all suggested a real presence of Christ in the consecrated elements as did the addition of a form of the communion of the sick from the reserved sacrament (Halse, 1946/1962: 36-37).

The most famous departure from BCP 1662 was a book entitled The Holy Eucharist, or more commonly, ‘The Red Book’, so named because of the colour of its cover, published by Bishop Arnold Wylde (1880-1958) in the Diocese of Bathurst in 1942 (Wylde, 1942, Judd and Cable, 1987: 253 and Beer, 2003, Online). ‘The Red Book’ was a version of the Eucharist based principally on the 1662 BCP and the 1928 BCP, with the inclusion of items traditionally associated with a Catholic and realist interpretation of the Eucharist, such as the Kyries, Benedictus, and Agnus Dei. The word ‘altar’ was also used instead of ‘holy table’ (e.g. Wylde, 1942: 10) and the heading ‘The Offertory’ was also placed in the service (Wylde, 1942: 10). At the offertory Bishop Wylde placed the following prayer which suggested that the gifts of bread and wine were a sacrifice or oblation to God and that they would become the body and blood of Christ:

“Most merciful God, look graciously upon the gifts now lying before thee, and send down thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, that he may make this bread the Body of the Lord, and this wine the Blood of the Lord. Amen.” (Wylde, 1942: 11).

Bishop Wylde intended to teach the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, indicating in a note before the Prayer of Consecration in ‘The Red Book’ that in this prayer “the bread and wine become the Body and Blood our Lord Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost” (Wylde, 1942: 20). The Prayer of Consecration was immediately followed by what Wylde called ‘The Oblation’ (Wylde, 1942: 23-24) which was the Prayer of Oblation from the 1662 BCP, transposed from after Communion to before Communion and said in the presence of the consecrated elements, thereby suggesting that ‘this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving’ referred not only to the individual communicant’s offering of praise and thanksgiving for the death of Christ, but also to the elements as a means of praise and thanksgiving. This was accentuated by the fact that the Lord’s Prayer, a greeting of peace and the Agnus Dei (Wylde, 1942: 24-25) were also said in the presence of the consecrated elements. This delayed the reception of communion, allowed prayers to said in the presence of the consecrated elements and broke the 1552 and 1662 BCP tradition of receiving Communion immediately after the Prayer of Consecration to avoid any suggestion of adoration of the consecrated elements. Wylde however specifically emphasised adoration by rubrics suggesting that a bell should be rung after the consecration of the bread and again after the consecration of the wine “to call us to adoration” (Wylde, 1942: 22). This sense of adoring Christ, present in the elements was further heightened by the inclusion of prayers to be said silently by the communicant. The following, for example, was suggested to be said before receiving Communion:

“We, thy servants, O Lord, bow down to thee, before thy holy altar, waiting for the rich mercies which are from thee. Send down upon us, O Lord, thy grace and benediction, and hallow our souls and bodies, that we may be worthy partakers of thy holy mysteries, unto forgiveness of sins and eternal life.” (Wylde, 1942: 25).

Suggestion of the real presence of Christ in the elements was also made by a form of Communion of the Sick which specified that this was “with the Reserved Sacrament” (Wylde, 1942: 33). Interestingly though Wylde included no epiclesis or anamnesis in the form of consecration, although an invocation of the Holy Spirit was suggested in the rubric before the consecration cited above (Wylde, 1942: 20). Clearly Wylde was suggesting a realist theology of the Eucharist in his booklet, although he did not include a fully Catholic form of consecration.

These directions and uses were assumed by some Evangelicals (both in the Diocese of Bathurst and the Diocese of Sydney) to teach pre-Reformation doctrines of eucharistic presence and sacrifice, including that of transubstantiation (Findlayson, 2003: 1, Online) and so a civil action was brought against Bishop Wylde in the Equity Court of New South Wales. ‘The Red Book’ and the court case are reviewed more fully in Rodd (1972: 160-169), Teale (1982) and Judd and Cable (1987: 252-255) and while the details of this action do not concern us here, ‘The Red Book’ however, demonstrates that a more realist view of the Eucharist than was found in the 1662 BCP was desired by some in the Anglican Church of Australia, and that others resisted such a view strongly. This suggests that the theology of the Eucharist, often based on church parties centred in particular dioceses, was varied.

Another departure from the 1662 BCP was The Order of the Holy Eucharist, also called ‘The Yellow Book’ because of the colour of the liturgy’s cover, which is undated, but seems to have been produced by J. Norman and published by the company Church Stores, around the middle of the twentieth century and used throughout many of the dioceses in Australia. This form follows the pattern of 1662 to some extent and adds material from the 1928 BCP as well as other traditional material. ‘The Yellow Book’ uses the Prayer of Consecration from 1662 BCP but does not proceed directly to Communion and instead places the Agnus Dei and various private prayers before the receiving of the elements. The eucharistic prayer is therefore not in the extended form without epiclesis, anamnesis, oblation or mighty acts of Christ. The Kyries in shortened form are used and the Benedictus is used as in the 1928 BCP. The various prayers suggested for private use strongly suggest a doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the elements, with one prayer stating in reference to Christ’s body and blood that “they are here” (Norman, undated, 16) while a rubric before the Prayer of Consecration states: “The Bread and Wine will be consecrated, and by the power of the Holy Spirit become the Body and Blood of the Lord. Our Lord Jesus is very near us.” (Norman, undated, 14).

The Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, 1962

Despite the variation within the Anglican Communion and within the Church of England in Australia, the theology of the 1662 BCP was however enshrined by means of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, which came into force in 1962. The Constitution stated that the Church of England in Australia (as it was then) “retains and approves the doctrine and principles of the Church of England embodied in the Book of Common Prayer” and sets the 1662 BCP, together with the Thirty-Nine Articles,“as the authorised standard of worship and doctrine in this Church” with the proviso that “no alteration in or permitted variations from the services or Articles therein contained shall contravene any principle of doctrine or worship laid down in such standard” (Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, 1962: paragraph 4). Despite this, the Constitution permits the bishop of a diocese to “permit deviations from the existing order of service” as long as such deviations are “not contravening any principle of doctrine or worship as aforesaid” (Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia, 1962: paragraph 4). This provision has been invoked by various bishops within the Anglican Church of Australia with very different results (e.g. the Bishop of Ballarat has used this provision to issue a set of liturgical resources entitled The Holy Eucharist (1995/2002) which present a very Catholic and realist interpretation of the Eucharist, while at the same time the Archbishop of Sydney has used the same provision to issue another set of liturgical resources entitled Sunday Services (2001) which present a very Reformed and nominalist interpretation of the Eucharist). It seems that Article 4 of the Constitution has the power of very elastic interpretation, although it may be that the extremes of Anglicanism in Australia do not share the same interpretations under Article 4 of the Constitution.

Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1966

With the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia and its provisions in mind a 1966 Report of the Prayer Book Commission to General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia (printed in Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1966: i-xviii) observed that most of the autonomous churches of the Anglican Communion had for many years produced revisions of their traditional prayer books and that such changes were in accord with Anglican tradition and principles (Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1996: i). In fact work on Prayer Book revision in Australia had begun as in May, 1962, when a commission had been appointed with the task of exploring the possibilities of prayer book revision (Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1966: ii). The Commission published a conservative revision which was essentially the service of Holy Communion from the 1662 BCP with a few minor alterations in language (Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1966: 18-29). The need for more contemporary language, the expression of fuller eucharistic doctrine, the influence of the liturgical movement and the changes in society regarding patterns of worship, prompted however, a more radical process of revision (Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1966: iii-iv). By 1966 the first revisions of the Eucharist had been carried out, taking into account work carried out on the structure of the Eucharist by the Liturgical Consultation of the Anglican Communion meeting in 1963 in Canada and some contemporary liturgies (i.e. A Liturgy for Africa, first published in 1964 and A Modern Liturgy, printed in Prayer Book Revision in Australia, 1966: 70-87). A Liturgy for Africa presented a more advanced realist theology of the Eucharist than was apparent in the 1662 BCP, particularly in an identification of the bread and wine of the Eucharist with an ‘offering’ in the Eucharist. In what was termed ‘The Great Thanksgiving’ the following words were found:

“Wherefore, O Father, we do this as thy Son commanded, offering to thee, with this holy Bread and Cup, our praise and thanksgiving for his one sacrifice once offered upon the cross, for his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension.” (A Liturgy for Africa, 1964/1967: 11).

The offering of bread and wine to God as an act of praise and thanksgiving for the mighty acts of Christ, is a clear realist linking of these signs of bread and wine with the signified acts of Christ. This presented a distinctly more realist theology than was present in the 1662 BCP, and this seems to have caused difficulties for some within the Anglican Church of Australia, since Prayer Book Revision in Australia (1966: x) recommends that the words ‘with this holy Bread and Cup’ be changed in their experimental Australian use to ‘in the communion this holy Bread and Cup’. No reason is given for this change and perhaps it could be argued that any offering so closely associated with the bread and wine, rather than with the ‘communion’ (that is, the act of communion) was too clearly realist to suit some within the Anglican Church of Australia.

A Modern Liturgy, 1966

In A Modern Liturgy (1966), the eucharistic prayer broke with the 1662 BCP pattern of mentioning only Christ’s sacrificial death and referred instead to the mighty redemptive acts of Christ and associated these more closely with institution narrative (A Modern Liturgy, 1966: 78) thereby suggesting a realist identification of sign and signified. In this same context, the eucharistic prayer prayed that God would “give us life by your Holy Spirit, that we who receive your gifts of bread and wine according to our Saviour’s word, may share by faith in his body and blood, and may eat and drink with him at his table in his kingdom” (A Modern Liturgy, 1966: 79). The prayer also went on to say: “We thank you for this bread” in the same sentence as it thanked God “for Christ your Son, the true and living bread given for the life of the world” (A Modern Liturgy, 1966: 79). At the fraction of the bread it was declared: “This bread we share, is it not our fellowship in the body of Christ” (A Modern Liturgy, 1966: 79) suggesting an ecclesial identification of bread and wine with the Church as the body of Christ. Clearly A Modern Liturgy presented a realist concept of the Eucharist, linking the signs of bread and wine with the work and presence of Christ, however it did this a restrained manner without a specific epiclesis over the bread and wine and without any offering of them to God in the sense of joining the oblation of the Eucharist with the oblation of the cross.

A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969 (Australia, ’69)

Clearly the radical view of eucharistic revision carried the day in Australia and A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969 was published by the Standing Liturgical Commission of General Synod. This service, the fruit of trial use in Australia and consultation with other parts of the Anglican Communion (Foreword, A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969) was put into use in the Anglican Church of Australia. The service reflecting the modern liturgical movement in form and wording but also maintaining aspects of the 1662 BCP Holy Communion, presented realist concepts of eucharistic theology. The bread and wine were directed to be placed on the table immediately before the eucharistic prayer (called a ‘Thanksgiving’) was said, thereby associating the elements with the central action of the Eucharist. The mighty acts of Christ’s redemption were recounted in the Thanksgiving and then the priest was directed to say:

“And now, Father, we thank you for this bread that we break and eat in remembrance of Christ, the true and living bread who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world. We thank you for this cup in remembrance of our Saviour Christ, the true vine.” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969: 12).

The bread and wine are here linked with the remembrance of Christ, the true bread and true vine, and this is followed by the recitation of the institution narrative. The institution narrative was then followed by thanks for Christ’s redemption and an invocation of the Holy Spirit on the people, asking that they may be partakers of the body and blood of Christ (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969: 13). An invitation to receive communion was then issued in these words:

“Come and take this holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ in remembrance that he died for you and feed on him in your heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969: 13).

This was followed by quite realist words of administration as the bread and wine were delivered to the communicants, i.e. “The body of Christ strengthen you” and “The blood of Christ strengthen you” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969: 13) which could be used as an alternative to the more traditional 1662 BCP words of administration. Overall A Service of Holy Communion for Australia 1969 represented a more realist shift in eucharistic theology in the Australian Anglican scene.

Sunday Services Revised, 1972

These services were a conservative revision of the Holy Communion from the 1662 BCP, which was published in 1972 by the Standing Liturgical Commission of General Synod of the Church of England in Australia and entitled Sunday Services Revised. This liturgy took the form of the 1662 Holy Communion and in its Prayer of Consecration (note not Thanksgiving) was a modern translation of the Prayer of Consecration the 1662 BCP (Sunday Services Revised, 1972: 39-40). The mighty acts of Christ’s redemption were not listed, and there was no thanking of God for the elements of bread and wine in close proximity to the institution narrative. Emphasis was placed on the receiving of the bread and wine, rather than on any realist linking of the elements with the body and blood of Christ, with the Prayer of Consecration ending immediately after the institution narrative and the words of administration being those of the 1662 BCP only. The Preface of acknowledged that the services presented were “a contemporary translation of … Holy Communion in the Book of Common Prayer of 1662” and that this was “the standard of worship and doctrine in this Church”, while it also acknowledged that “many Anglicans are content gratefully to continue using that book, more or less as it was published” (Sunday Services Revised, 1972: 3). The Preface also acknowledged that these 1662 style services “will have a place in the Australian Prayer Book which we hope will be published within the next few years” (Sunday Services Revised, 1972: 3). The theology of the Eucharist expressed in Sunday Services Revised was clearly less realist than the theology expressed in A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969, and seems to represent a conservative reaction against the trend of modern liturgies with significantly increased realist understandings of the Eucharist, but the impetus for more realist version of the Eucharist was not stalled. The Liturgical Commission of the Church of England in Australia published in 1973 A Service of Holy Communion for Australia 1973, which was the successor to the 1969 revised eucharistic liturgy.

A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1973 (Australia ’73)

Australia ’73, as this liturgy became known,acknowledged its debt to previous modern liturgical developments (A Modern Liturgy, 1966; A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1969; the English Series 2 and Series 3 orders of Holy Communion) and at the same time the Preface expressed the hope that “a definitive form of this service will be published not later than 1977, to be used along with other forms, including a contemporary version of the 1662 service” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1973: 5). Clearly the intention for prayer book development in Australia was intended to include both a modern eucharistic rite and a 1662 eucharistic rite, but at the same time this meant that both a more explicitly realist theology of the Eucharist (i.e. Australia 1973) and a less explicitly realist theology (i.e. Sunday Service Revised, 1972) were countenanced.

Australia ’73 reflected the form and wording of the modern liturgical movement and in ‘The Thanksgiving’ expressed a clearly realist theology of the Eucharist. The mighty acts of Christ’s redemptive activity were recounted and thanksgiving for the bread and wine were made immediately before the institution narrative, thereby associating the bread and wine with the central action of the Eucharist (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1973: 14). Following the institution narrative however, a more specifically realist association of the bread and wine with the sacrifice of Christ, than was found in Australia ‘69, was made. The Thanksgiving prayed:

“Therefore, Father, with this bread and this cup we proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross; we celebrate the redemption he has won for us; and we look for his coming to fulfil all things according to your will.” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1973: 15).

The bread and wine are here identified with the proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice, but care is taken not to suggest any form of immoderate realism, since the proclamation is of the ‘perfect’ and ‘once for all upon the cross’ sacrifice. Nonetheless it is clear that there is a realist identification here between the signs of bread and wine and the proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice and coming fulfilment. An epiclesis on the people stops short of making a specific linking between the bread and wine and the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist. It says:

“Grant that we who eat and drink these holy things may be filled with your life and goodness for ever. Renew us by your Holy Spirit, that we may be united in the body of your Son and be brought with all your people into the joy of your eternal kingdom.” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1973: 15).

Whereas Australia ‘69 prayed, following the institution narrative, that the Holy Spirit would make people ‘partakers of the body and blood’ of Christ, Australia ‘73 refers only to an ecclesial sense of Christ’s presence where people are ‘united in the body of your Son’, but nonetheless refers to the bread and wine as ‘holy things’ (see above). Despite this, realist words of administration (“The body of Christ keep you in eternal life” and “The blood of Christ keep you in eternal life” (A Service of Holy Communion for Australia, 1973: 16) are used along with the more traditional but modernised form of the 1662 BCP. A commentary on Australia ’73 was published to support its use (Burge, 1973) and reference to this work will provide more detail on Australia ’73, its theology and how it was intended to be used.

An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) 1978

The publication of An Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) in 1978 was a major event in the history of liturgy in the Anglican Church of Australia. It passed through General Synod in 1977 with only one dissenting voice in the House of Clergy and unanimous agreement in the Houses of Bishops and Laity (Grindrod, 1978: 29) with few amendments to the draft before the Synod (An Australian Prayer Book – Draft, 1977). One of the guiding principles of the Liturgical Commission in assembling the liturgies of AAPB (1978) was the recognition of what Archbishop Grindrod calls “theological variance” and the desire “to discover the truth behind the divergences” without seeking any longer to regard the principle of uniformity of liturgical use as authoritative in the Anglican Church of Australia (Grindrod, 1978: 24). Clearly Archbishop Grindrod was adopting the position taken years earlier by Lambeth, 1958, but at the same time he seemed to be putting some distance between the products of liturgical revision (in this case AAPB, 1978) and the restrictions of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia (1962) which required that BCP (1662) be the standard of doctrine and worship in the Anglican Church of Australia. Grindod seems to be signalling an impending period of ‘theological variance’ expressed in the various eucharistic liturgies which were to be used. The result was that An Australian Prayer Book (1978) was “embraced far more widely than could ever have been anticipated” and even though it did not bring uniformity, it did bring “to the Church a measure of unity and common practice which had previously been lacking” (Richardson, 1997: 8). Unity and common practice seemed to recognise, not only a variety of eucharistic liturgies but also ‘theological variance’ as the norm in the Anglican Church of Australia. This was accepted eagerly by some and reject strenuously by others.

AAPB (1978) supplied two eucharistic orders, the First Order, a conservative revision of the 1662 service of Holy Communion and the Second Order, a form drawing on the modern liturgical movement and the work already carried out in Australia, especially in uniting aspects of the Australia ‘69 and Australia ‘73 eucharistic orders. The First Order (AAPB, 1978: 114-133) passed through the Synod with only very minor alteration. This Order reflected the theology and shape of the service of Holy Communion in the 1662 BCP, although there were some concessions to the modern liturgical movement (the Kyries, modern introductions to the readings, modern language, an abbreviated Exhortation and additional seasonal material). It was a “‘conservative’ form of service for the Holy Communion” and “represents a ‘translation’ of the 1662 Communion service” (Sinden, 1978: 97). The Prayer of Consecration (not called ‘The Thanksgiving’) closely resembled the Prayer of Consecration in the 1662 service, but with modern language. The atonement theology of 1662 was a feature and no reference was made to the mighty acts of Christ, nor to his coming again. There was no epiclesis or anamnesis, nor was there any thanksgiving for the gifts of bread and wine or offering of them to God. Communion followed immediately after the Prayer of Consecration, which ended with the institution narrative, and the words of administration set were modelled on the 1662 service, although the alternative words from the Second Order were allowed, but not printed in the First Order. The tone of the First Order was distinctly that of Reformed eucharistic theology with restrained realist language and theology as is found in the 1662 BCP (see Case Study 1.40). This particularly applied to the reception of the bread and wine being the climax and central point of the Eucharist in this First Order.

The Second Order of the Eucharist in AAPB (1978: 134-174) reflects the shape and theology of many other eucharistic liturgies in the Anglican Communion. The ‘Thanksgiving’ appears in several alternative forms which express a more realist eucharistic theology than is found in the First Order. The mighty acts of Christ are recounted and this is followed by thanks for the gifts of bread and wine in the following words:

“Merciful Father, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine, and we pray that we who eat and drink them in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit in obedience to our Saviour Christ in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his body and his blood.” (AAPB, 1978: 147).

The bread and wine are to be eaten in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit and it is in so doing, following Christ’s command, that the communicants are said to be partakers of Christ’s body and blood. The bread and wine are in this way identified with the body and blood of Christ in a realist manner, but there is no specific consecratory epiclesis, in the sense that the Holy Spirit is invoked to ‘make’ the bread and wine the body and blood of Christ. Instead the Holy Spirit is said to be present in fellowship with the eating and the drinking and it is in the eating and the drinking that people are partakers of Christ’s body and blood.

Following the institution narrative of the Second Order (AAPB, 1978: 147) there is a realist identification of the bread and wine with the celebration of the mighty acts of Christ. The Thanksgiving says:

“Father, with this bread and this cup, we do as our Saviour has commanded; we celebrate the redemption he has won for us; we proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and we look for his coming to fulfil all things according to your will.” (AAPB, 1978: 147).

The bread and wine as signs are here identified in a realist manner with the celebration and proclamation of Christ’s acts of sacrifice, resurrection, ascension and coming again. This is followed by an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the people who make the celebration and proclamation using the bread and wine, i.e. “Renew us by your Holy Spirit” (AAPB, 1978: 148) in ecclesial terms, i.e. “unite us in the body of your Son” (AAPB, 1978: 148). This ecclesial sense is reinforced by a sentence used before communion which says: “We who are many are one body in Christ, for we all share in the one bread” (AAPB, 1978: 148), however the sacramental presence of Christ is also stated in the words of invitation to receive communion, i.e. “Come let us take this holy sacrament of the body and blood of Christ” but this is clearly not an immoderate sense of realism, since the invitation continues, “in remembrance that he died for us, and feed on him in our hearts by faith with thanksgiving” (AAPB, 1978: 149). In addition to words of administration patterned on the 1662 service of Holy Communion, there are also a modern forms which says: “The body/blood of Christ keep you in eternal life” (AAPB, 1978: 149) which suggest a realist linking of the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ. A rubric (AAPB, 1978: 149) also directs that during The Communion hymns or anthems can be used. These include the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei, both of which are suggestive of a realist identification of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ. These however are not printed in the text of the service but placed in a section called ‘Notes’ at the end of the service (AAPB, 1978: 153) thereby distancing them somewhat from the Thanksgiving. Despite this attempt to meet objections to the use of both the Benedictus and Agnus Dei, their placement in AAPB (1978) represents the first official appearance on these parts of the Eucharist, traditionally associated with a realist eucharistic theology, in any Australian Anglican eucharistic liturgy and as such they assist to give vent to the realist theology underlying the Second Order of AAPB (1978).

An Australian Prayer Book (1978) met a perceived need for liturgical revision in the Anglican Church of Australia in the last quarter of the twentieth century. It was widely used and accepted by all dioceses, initially meeting the needs of both Evangelical and Catholic Anglicans (Richardson, 1997: 8). It was not intended however to remain in use for a long period of time, and AAPB’s own Preface stated it was expected to have a life of about 10 to 15 years (AAPB, 1978: 13). This meant that the process of revision continued, both in a national capacity through the work of the Liturgical Commission (e.g. The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993) and in various diocesan uses (e.g. among the Evangelicals, the Diocese of Sydney produced Experimental Sunday Services in 1993 and among the Catholics, the Diocese of Ballarat produced a manual entitled The Holy Eucharist in 1995).

Experimental Sunday Services 1993 (Diocese of Sydney)

For the Evangelicals there was some unease with the realist eucharistic theology of what was described as “the expanded thanksgivings in modern Anglican liturgies” (Experimental Sunday Services, 1993: 7) and so there was desire to produce services which brought “out the biblical teaching that we meet to express our fellowship with God on the basis of Jesus’ sacrifice and our fellowship with one another” (Experimental Sunday Services, 1993: 7). This desire seemed to be based on a belief that “it is easy to obscure the focus of New Testament teaching about the Lord’s Supper and its significance for us” and so there was a wish “to return to the simplicity of The Book of Common Prayer” (Experimental Sunday Services, 1993: 7) where there was a less specifically realist theology and where the focus was on the eating and drinking in remembrance of Jesus and his sacrifice. In the two eucharistic liturgies of Experimental Sunday Services (1993: 21-27 and 28-33) there is a receptionist theology expressed in words such as:

“And now, Father, we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine, and pray that we who receive them, according to our Saviour’s word, may share his body and blood.” (Experimental Sunday Services, 1993: 26).

It is the receiving of the bread and wine, not the bread and wine themselves, that are linked, by Christ’s word, with the sharing of Christ’s body and blood. Aspects of the Eucharist traditionally associated with a realist understanding are omitted (e.g. the mighty acts of Christ in addition to Christ’s death, an epiclesis and anamnesis, as well as the Benedictus and Agnus Dei). The words of administration follow the pattern of the 1662 BCP. The attempt here is to lessen the realist notions of presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist.

The Holy Eucharist 1995/2002 (Diocese of Ballarat)

For the Anglican Catholics in Australia there was also some unease with AAPB (1978) since the eucharistic liturgies were regarded “as being unrepresentative of fully developed Anglican Catholic teaching and therefore inadequate as a liturgical base” (Richardson, 1997: 8). Bishop Silk of Ballarat in his 1995 (Revised 2002) manual entitled The Holy Eucharist, for example, makes changes to the eucharistic liturgies of An Australian Prayer Book (1978) so that they have a “Catholic interpretation” and a more “adequate” epiclesis and anamnesis (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 198 and 199). In the second edition of his manual he further clarifies these amendments by stating that they make the thanksgiving prayers “clearly inclusive of Anglican Catholic understandings” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 8). In the First Thanksgiving of the Second Order of AAPB for example, significant changes are made. AAPB states:

“Merciful Father, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine, and we pray that we who eat and drink them in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit in obedience to our Saviour Christ in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his body and blood.” (AAPB, 1978: 147).

Bishop Silk however amends this to read in what becomes a more complex set of words:

“Merciful Father, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine, and we pray that we who eat and drink them in obedience to our Saviour Christ in remembrance of his death and passion, may, by the power of the Holy Spirit, by them be partakers of his body and his blood.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 160).

The Holy Spirit’s power is more closely linked with the partaking of the body and blood of Christ and the less realist ‘in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit’ is removed. The bread and wine are also more closely linked with the body and blood of Christ by the addition of the words ‘by them’, suggesting that it is by them (that is, the bread and wine) that the partaking of the body and blood of Christ occurs, rather than by the receptionist suggestion of the presence of Christ through the action of eating and drinking. Silk also amends the anamnesis of AAPB, changing:

“Father, with this bread and this cup, we do as our Saviour has commanded; we celebrate the redemption he has won for us; we proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and we look for his coming to fulfil all things according to your will.” (AAPB, 1978: 147)

to:

“Father, we offer you this bread and this cup as our Saviour has commanded, and we celebrate the redemption he has won for us; we proclaim his perfect sacrifice made once for all upon the cross, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; and we look for his coming to fulfil all things according to your will.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 161).

The intention here clearly affirms a moderate realism since it refers to a ‘perfect sacrifice made once for all’ but at the same time this contains a realist theology with an oblation of the bread and wine, suggesting that by the offering of the bread and wine there is a celebration and proclamation of Christ’s sacrifice. This suggestion of a present offering is however, even more developed in the eucharistic prayer for the Feast of Corpus Christi – the Blessed Sacrament (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 102-103). Here Bishop Silk says:

“At the last supper, as he was at table with his apostles, he offered himself to you as the spotless Lamb, the acceptable gift that gives you perfect praise. Christ has given us this memorial of his passion to bring the saving power to the end of time.” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 102)

Here the offering is clearly associated with the Last Supper or the institution of the Eucharist and not with the cross of Calvary. It is this offering, in the Eucharist, that is said to give ‘perfect praise’ and it is this ‘memorial of his passion’ which brings the saving power of Christ, not the event of the cross. This is very close to immoderate realism, since it is the Eucharist which is seen to bring the saving and not the Eucharist as an instantiation of the sacrifice of Christ.

Amendments are also made to other Thanksgiving prayers of AAPB (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 162-167) but in the second edition of his manual Silk only uses the first thanksgiving of AAPB (1978) (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 133-136) since this is the only thanksgiving that he sees as being “patient of a Catholic interpretation” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 8) in AAPB (1978). He states simply that the other eucharistic prayers in AAPB (1978) “are not recommended” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 136), whereas in the 1995 edition of the manual he states more fully that the Fourth Thanksgiving Prayer (AAPB, 1978: 165-166) is not recommended, because it has what Silk describes as “neither adequate anamnesis nor epiclesis” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 199 and 201).

The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper 1993 (Liturgical Commission)

In 1993 the Liturgical Commission produced a new set of eucharistic liturgies for trial use in the Anglican Church of Australia. There were two orders of the Eucharist – First Order, which was a translation of the service of Holy Communion in the 1662 BCP, similar to the First Order in AAPB (1978) (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 1-19) and Second Order, a modern liturgy in shape and wording, which was intended to be streamlined and provide variety whilst taking into account developments in ecumenical consensus (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 21-67). The Thanksgiving Prayers in the Second Order came from a variety of sources, including AAPB (1978), ancient liturgical models such as the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, other provinces of the Anglican Communion such as Canada’s 1985 modern prayer book (The Book of Alternative Services) and newly developed forms (reflecting Aboriginal creation motifs and a responsive form). In each of the six thanksgiving prayers there were realist ideas of both Christ’s eucharistic presence and sacrifice. An epiclesis (although not in the developed realist sense of asking that the bread and wine ‘become’ the body and blood of Christ) and an anamnesis (although not a specific offering of the bread and wine) were included in each thanksgiving as was the Benedictus, now printed in the service following the Sanctus, but placed in brackets. The Agnus Dei and other anthems were set to be sung or said during communion as had been the patterns in the Second Order of AAPB (1978). The words of administration included a 1662 BCP form, the AAPB (1978) form (‘The body/blood of Christ keep you in eternal life’) and a new form which was specifically linked the bread to the body of Christ and the cup to the blood of Christ, i.e. “The body of Christ, the bread of heaven” and “The blood of Christ, the cup of salvation” (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 51). Clearly this new set of services expressed a more developed realist expression of Christ’s eucharistic presence and sacrifice than was the case in AAPB (1978) or in Experimental Sunday Services (1993). For some however, the expression of a realist theology of the Eucharist, especially in relation to the epiclesis and anamnesis was still too muted and there was a desire for a fuller and more catholic expression of eucharistic theology (Richardson, 1997: 8).

A Prayer Book for Australia 1995 (Liturgical Commission)

Draft APBA (1995)

Efforts to further the process of revision in the Anglican Church of Australia came to a head at General Synod in 1995. A draft book, dated July, 1995 and entitled A Prayer Book for Australia was submitted to Synod members for their consideration prior to the meeting of General Synod. The draft book contained three orders of the Eucharist – First, Second and Third Orders – entitled The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper (APBA Draft, 1995: 95) thereby suggesting through the use of these names, concessions to both the Evangelical and Catholic parties within the Anglican Church of Australia. The First Order (APBA Draft, 1995: 96-113) was a conservative revision of the 1662 service of Holy Communion in contemporary and inclusive English, having much in common in shape with the First Order in AAPB (1978). The Second Order (APBA Draft, 1995: 114-158) and the Third Order (APBA Draft, 1995: 159-174) reflected the shape of eucharistic liturgies resulting from the modern ecumenical movement, but the Second and Third Orders differed somewhat in that while both the Second and Third Orders used forms of words which expressed realist assumptions, the Third Order was more restrained in this expression than the Second Order. The Third Order for example did not contain the Benedictus or Agnus Dei and the forms of the epiclesis and anamnesis were restrained. The first Thanksgiving Prayer in the Draft Third Order (APBA Draft, 1995: 168-169), known in the Draft as Thanksgiving 5, borrowed heavily in its Preface and Institution Narrative from the First Form of ‘An Order for the Lord’s Supper’ produced in the Diocese of Sydney (Experimental Sunday Services, 1993: 25-27) but went on to add a restrained epiclesis and anamnesis and concluded with an eschatological reference to the feast in the heavenly kingdom, not present in the Sydney order. The second Thanksgiving Prayer in the Draft Third Order (APBA Draft, 1995: 170-171), known in the Draft as Thanksgiving 6, was a slightly amended version of Thanksgiving 5 in the Liturgical Commission trial eucharistic liturgies produced in 1993 (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 44-46) but with the Benedictus removed and additional reference to the work of Christ on the cross. There was a very restrained epiclesis in Thanksgiving 6 in the Draft APBA (1995) (i.e. “Fill us with your Spirit” Draft APBA, 1995: 171). The earlier trial eucharistic material had had a much fuller anamnesis referring to the mighty acts of Christ in his suffering, death, rising and ascending into heaven (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 46) but in the Draft APBA,Thanksgiving 6 had been reduced to “You have gathered us together to feed on Christ and to remember all he has done for us” (Draft APBA, 1995: 171). It seems, although this is not specified, that the Third Order of Draft APBA (1995) was intended for use by those who preferred a more Reformed expression of eucharistic worship. As a result of the negotiation on the floor of General Synod though, Draft Thanksgiving 6 did not progress to the final version of APBA (1995) (although it did find a place in the Second Order of the final form of APBA, 1995) and Thanksgiving 5, with slight amendment from the Draft version passed into the final version of the Third Order. It is important to note the version of the Thanksgiving Prayer in the Third Order which found its way into the final version of APBA (1995) was less realist in the assumptions underlying its eucharistic theology than the Thanksgiving Prayers of the final Second Order forms and generally reflected the work of the Evangelical Diocese of Sydney in Experimental Sunday Services (1993).

The intent of these three eucharistic orders seems to have been firstly, to maintain the use and theology of the 1662 BCP, but in contemporary language (First Order), secondly, to use modern eucharistic liturgies which were contemporary in language but which also reflected a more developed Catholic and so realist theology of the Eucharist (Second Order) and thirdly, to present a modern eucharistic liturgy in contemporary language which reflected a more Reformed and so less realist theology of the Eucharist (Third Order). The eucharistic theology of First Order has been considered above in the review of the First Order in The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper (1993) and so will not be reviewed again.

The Draft APBA Thanksgiving Prayers in the Second Order (Draft APBA, 1995: 123-133) were supplemented by the two other Draft Thanksgiving Prayers printed in the Third Order (Draft APBA, 1995: 168-171). The Draft Thanksgiving Prayers as presented to General Synod were modified in some cases (e.g. Thanksgiving Prayer 1), maintained with some amendment in other cases (e.g. Thanksgiving Prayers 2 and 5), rejected in other cases (e.g. Thanksgiving Prayers 3 and 4) and incorporated into other prayers (e.g. Thanksgiving Prayer 6). The result in the final form of APBA (1995) approved by the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Australia was five Thanksgiving Prayers in the Second Order, instead of the draft set of four, with one (Thanksgiving Prayer 3) being an entirely new prayer. While there was some innovation (Thanksgiving 2 and Thanksgiving Prayer 3) there was also some conservatism (with the realism of draft Thanksgiving Prayer 3, based on the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus and draft Thanksgiving Prayer 4, based on the Canadian The Book of Alternative Service (1985) being rejected whilst the less realist Thanksgiving Prayers 1 and 2 from AAPB (1978) were preferred). Despite this the Thanksgivings in the Second Order of APBA (1995) present a realist theology of the Eucharist, even if this realist theology is less developed than in the eucharistic liturgies of other parts of the Anglican Communion (e.g. the Episcopal Church of the United States of American and the Church of the Province of Southern Africa). APBA (1995) passed through General Synod, although this was not as unanimous a decision as the passing of AAPB (1978) had been. While AAPB (1978) was authorised with only one dissenting voice, the authorising Canon for APBA (1995) was passed by 22 out of 23 in the House of Bishops, by 87 out of 101 in the House of Clergy and by 84 out of 101 in the House of Laity. The total of 193 votes for APBA out of a possible 225 did however represent an overwhelming endorsement for the new prayer book of 85.8% of the members of General Synod, 1995 (Minutes of General Synod, 1995: 42). Clearly there were greater theological and philosophical differences with APBA (1995) than there had been with AAPB (1978).

APBA (1995)

The eucharistic theology of the Thanksgiving Prayers in the Second and Third Orders of APBA (1995) will now be considered in order to highlight some of the theological and philosophical issues. Thanksgiving 1 (APBA, 1995: 128-129) was a shortened version of the First Form of The Thanksgiving in AAPB (1978: 145-148) (Richardson, 1997: 74) but included an epiclesis expressed in a more catholic and realist form. It read:

“Merciful God, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and wine, and we pray that by your Word and Holy Spirit, we who eat and drink them, may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood.” (APBA, 1995: 128).

The bread and wine are clearly associated with the body and blood of Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, although the wording of ‘partakers of Christ’s body and blood’ is preferred to the more developed realist form of the epiclesis, found in some Anglican liturgies (e.g. USA and Southern Africa) which use the form ‘made Christ’s body and blood’. Use of ‘partakers’ lessens the realist connection of bread/wine and body/blood since it focuses more on the act of reception or partaking than on the making or changing of the elements into the body and blood of Christ. The anamnesis in Thanksgiving 1 also presents a realist understanding, linking the bread and wine with the celebration of the mighty acts of Christ, whilst at the same time presenting a moderate realist view by referring to the one, perfect and sufficient sacrifice. The anamnesis reads:

“Therefore we do as our Saviour has commanded: proclaiming his offering of himself made once for all upon the cross, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming again, we celebrate, with this bread and this cup, his one perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world.” (APBA, 1995: 129).

The anamnesis stops short of a specific oblation or offering of the bread and wine to God (such as is found in some modern Anglican eucharistic liturgies reviewed above, e.g. USA and Southern Africa), although the epiclesis does thank God for the gifts of bread and wine. The anamnesis nonetheless presents a realist understanding of eucharistic sacrifice by identifying the signs of bread and wine with the celebration of Christ’s sacrifice and the proclamation of Christ’s offering on the cross, in resurrection, ascension and coming again. The use of the word ‘offering’ here, in close proximity to the bread and wine, is a clear realist statement not found in AAPB (1978). Proclamation of the ‘offering’ in AAPB was restricted to the offering of prayer and praise by the people (e.g. The fourth form of the Thanksgiving used the words “We offer our prayer and praise, Father” (AAPB, 1978: 166) and did not take the form of proclaiming Christ’s offering in the context of celebration with the bread and wine. APBA (1995) does however ‘proclaim the offering’ in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist and therefore represents an additional level of realism as regards eucharistic sacrifice.

Thanksgiving 2 in APBA (1995: 130-132) is a rearrangement of Thanksgiving 2 proposed in the draft form of APBA but with significant changes. It also reflects recent work in Anglican and ecumenical liturgy (Richardson, 1997: 74) in terms of shape and the relationship between biblical themes and recognisable Australian imagery. Once again this thanksgiving presented a realist eucharistic theology. The draft form of the epiclesis read:

“Send your Holy Spirit upon us and our celebration that all who eat and drink at this table may be strengthened to serve you in the world and to proclaim the everlasting gospel, one body and one holy people, a living sacrifice in Jesus Christ our Lord.” (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 38).

In the final version of Thanksgiving 2 in APBA, this became however:

“Send your Holy Spirit upon us and our celebration that all who eat and drink at this table may be strengthened by Christ’s body and blood to serve you in the world.” (APBA, 1995: 132).

The epiclesis in the final form of APBA gives more specificity about what is the source of strengthening (i.e. Christ’s body and blood in the celebration and at the table), whereas in the draft form the eating and the drinking at the table are seen as the source of strengthening without the specifically realist link with the body and blood of Christ. It seems therefore that in relation to the epiclesis in Thanksgiving 2 of APBA (1995) there is a more developed realist theology expressed. This however does not seem to be the case in relation to the anamnesis in Thanksgiving 2. In the draft form of Thanksgiving 2 the anamnesis read:

“Therefore, living God, as we obey his command, we remember his life of obedience to you, his suffering and death, his resurrection and exaltation, and his promise to be with us for ever. … We set before you these gifts of bread and wine. Accept, we pray, our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” (The Holy Communion also called the Eucharist and the Lord’s Supper, 1993: 37).

Evan Burge argues that “the sense of the ancient verbs for ‘we offer’ (Latin offerimus, Greek  may be expressed by ‘we draw near to you with this bread and cup’ or ‘we bring before you this bread and cup’” (Burge, 1995: 6, Note 58) thereby suggesting that the words ‘we set before you these gifts of bread and wine’ in the draft form of Thanksgiving 2 are really an offering or oblation. This argument is strengthened by the next line which suggests that the request for God to accept the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving refers back to the ‘setting before’ God of the bread and wine. This statement of oblation is clearly more realist than any expression found in Thanksgiving 1, and as such was unacceptable to certain viewpoints within the Synod (particularly the Evangelicals), and so it was significantly modified in the final form of Thanksgiving 2 in AAPB (1995) to become:

“Therefore, living God, as we obey his command, we remember his life of obedience to you, his suffering and death, his resurrection and exaltation, and his promise to be with us for ever. With this bread and this cup we celebrate his saving death until he comes. Accept we pray our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.” (APBA, 1995: 131-132).

The words of oblation (‘offer’ or ‘set before’ to accept Burge’s argument) are not used, although the link between the mighty acts of Christ and the elements is made by reference to their celebration with the bread and cup. Furthermore the words praying for the acceptance of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving could be seen to refer back to the bread and wine. Thanksgiving 2 of APBA (1995) therefore maintains a realist eucharistic theology, strengthened from the draft in the epiclesis, but lessened in the anamnesis.

One of the most ardent exponents of the fuller catholic (and realist) theology of the Eucharist was Bishop David Silk, the Bishop of the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Ballarat. At the General Synod of 1995, he put forward from the floor of Synod, a new and alternative form of the Thanksgiving not printed in the draft book and not receiving any trial use. Silk describes this prayer as “an explicitly Catholic text” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 8). One commentator argues that in proposing such an addition to the draft material, “Catholic Anglicans sought a stronger statement of eucharistic offering and epiclesis” (Varcoe, 1998: 189). This prayer was debated at some length both on the floor of Synod and behind the scenes (Richardson, 1997: 75 and Silk, 2003) and became in a modified form, Thanksgiving 3 of APBA (1995: 133-135). The epiclesis in Thanksgiving 3 prays:

“Hear us, merciful Lord; through Christ accept our sacrifice of praise; and, by the power of your Word and Holy Spirit, sanctify this bread and wine, that we who share in this holy sacrament may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood.” (APBA, 1995: 134)

Whereas the three other thanksgiving prayers in APBA (1995) refer to the Holy Spirit in relation to the partaking of Christ’s body and blood (Thanksgiving 1) or to the Holy Spirit being sent upon the people and the celebration (Thanksgiving 2) or to the power of the Holy Spirit in an unspecified manner (Thanksgiving 4), Thanksgiving 3 specifically prays for a sanctifying of the bread and wine, so that following this sanctification those who share this holy sacrament may be partakers of Christ’s body and blood. The use of the word ‘sanctify’ suggests change in the state of holiness of the bread and wine, so that those who partake of them partake of Christ’s body and blood.

In relation to the anamnesis,Thanksgiving 3 connects the mighty acts of Christ with an offering of a spiritual sacrifice, saying:

“Therefore, in obedience to his command, we commemorate and celebrate his saving passion and death, his mighty resurrection and ascension into heaven and we eagerly await his coming again in glory.

We thank you that by your grace alone you have accepted us in Christ; and here we offer you a spiritual sacrifice, holy and acceptable in your sight. Through Christ, receive this our duty and service, and grant that we who eat and drink these holy gifts may, by your Spirit, be one body in Christ, and serve you in unity and peace.” (APBA, 1995: 135).

Clearly there is a commemoration and celebration of the mighty acts of Christ (paragraph 1) but the connection to this celebration and proclamation is placed at a greater distance from any reference to the bread and wine than is the case in the other thanksgiving prayers (e.g. see Thanksgiving 1 where the words “we celebrate, with this bread and cup, his one perfect and sufficient sacrifice” (APBA, 1995: 129) place the celebration of the sacrifice in very close proximity to the bread and wine, such that the celebration is done with the bread and wine). Thanksgiving 3 seems to be a little more reticent about making this connection and instead speaks of the commemoration and celebration of Christ’s acts with any reference to the bread and wine being nine lines later in the word ‘gifts’. This is surprising considering the Catholic origins of this prayer and its proposer. Despite this, the anamnesis in Thanksgiving 3 uses the words: “here we offer you a spiritual sacrifice, holy and acceptable in your sight” (APBA, 1995: 135). To what does the word ‘offer’ refer? A clue must surely be in the word ‘here’, suggesting that the offering of a spiritual sacrifice is ‘here’ in the Eucharist and that this offering is acceptable and holy. ‘Here’ could refer to the bread and wine, since they are ‘here’ in the Eucharist, but it could also refer to the offering of a spiritual sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the context of ‘here’ in the Eucharist as an act of praise and thanksgiving.

The amendments brought into this prayer, presumably to satisfy Evangelical objections to any concept of oblation in the Eucharist by means of the bread and wine, seem to have cast the theological position and the realist understanding of this Third Thanksgiving Prayer into some doubt. Gillian Varcoe argues that “evangelicals were intent on protecting the unique atoning work of Christ” and so “the prayer does not reflect consensus, but is burdened with party code words” (Varcoe, 1998: 189) and significant repetitiveness. The reference to ‘your grace alone’ suggests an attempt to make the point that acceptance in Christ is dependent on Christ’s grace alone and not on the grace of the sacraments, and as such accords with a moderate realist view of sacrifice in the Eucharist – that is, the grace of Christ is instantiated in the eucharistic sacrifice, but as a particular of the universality of Christ’s grace. It seems possible to conclude that attempts to ‘insulate’ this particular thanksgiving from possible immoderate realist understandings or to any reference to an oblation with the elements, have at the same time limited or lessened the moderate realist understanding of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. It is difficult therefore to understand why Thanksgiving 3 was so heavily criticised in the Diocese of Sydney by several Evangelical writers (e.g. Woodhouse, 1995 and Doyle, 1997a) and by a report of the Doctrine Commission of the Diocese of Sydney (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on A Prayer Book for Australia, 1996) when the other thanksgiving prayers present a more openly realist understanding of both Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. Perhaps the strength of the reaction is related to the use of the word ‘offer’ (APBA, 1995: 135) in Thanksgiving 3, suggesting eucharistic oblation in the Thanksgiving. This conclusion is supported by evidence in the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA, which says that: “In Thanksgiving 3 the movement towards a notion of eucharistic sacrifice is most definite of all forms of the prayer of consecration in APBA” and as such for these writers represents “a return to the idea of pre-Reformation liturgies in which the Eucharist (‘Thanksgiving’) was believed to be itself saving” (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on A Prayer Book for Australia, 1996: 465). Any suggestion that ‘our’ sacrifice is part of the Prayer of Consecration is, in the view of the writers of the Sydney Report on APBA (1995), “contrary to the practice of BCP” (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on A Prayer Book for Australia, 1996: 467) since BCP (1662) places any reference to a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving after communion and not in the Prayer of Consecration. Clearly in the interpretation of the authors of this Sydney Report the doctrine and worship of APBA (1995) are not consistent with the doctrine and worship of the 1662 BCP (as the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia (1962) directs).

One of the consequences of the insertion of Thanksgiving 3 into APBA (1995) was that a form of prayer was adopted that had never been used in any church (Richardson, 1997: 75, Varcoe, 1998: 189). This meant that “parts of it are awkwardly expressed and difficult to say” but more importantly for the purposes of the present work, Thanksgiving 3, “represents a departure from the usual Anglican practice of writing liturgy that represent a consensus of the Church as a whole which neither suppresses nor exaggerates particular doctrines. It is not difficult to find within it ‘code’ words representing the doctrinal positions of different factions within the Church.” (Richardson, 1997: 75). Although he does not refer to realism and nominalism, it seems that this is the basis of the differences in doctrine which were negotiated and debated both at General Synod and behind the scenes. Another consequence of the insertion of Silk’s Thanksgiving 3 is that the draft Thanksgiving 3 was completely rejected by the General Synod. Private conversation between the Rev’d Dr Bill Lawton (a member of the Liturgical Commission which presented the draft APBA (1995) to the General Synod) has revealed that draft Thanksgiving 3 was written by Evan Burge (at that time also a member of the Liturgical Commission and the Warden of Trinity College, University of Melbourne) based on a new translation by Burge of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, an ancient liturgical text that has significantly influenced liturgical development in the twentieth century in a number of tradition (e.g. Roman Catholic, Anglican and Uniting) (Lawton, 2003) and which as an ancient model presents a realist eucharistic theology. Burge himself observes that draft Thanksgiving 3 “went out in favour of the new Thanksgiving” (Burge, 1995: 6) but reserves comment, whereas David Richardson (another member of the Liturgical Commission) is less reserved, commenting that: “It is also a misfortune in practice that the shortest (and most ancient) thanksgiving in the draft book, that based on Hippolytus, was replaced by the longest” (Richardson, 1997: 75). Richardson’s distaste for this replacement is hardly concealed and suggests that compromising eucharistic theology, in order to safeguard party positions, is hardly the way to proceed in the development of eucharistic liturgies. Gillian Varcoe supports this conclusion and commenting on the party focus so obvious in the debate at General Synod that “mistrust skews communication and results too readily in poor liturgy” (Varcoe, 1998: 189).

Thanksgiving 4 in APBA (1995: 136-138) is a revision of the second thanksgiving in AAPB (1978) (Richardson, 1997: 75) but with an epiclesis strengthened in a realist direction through the linking of the bread and wine to the power of the Holy Spirit and the partaking of Christ’s body and blood (APBA, 1995: 137). The anamnesis in Thanksgiving 4 of APBA is also strengthened from that in AAPB (1978) by the linking of the celebration of Christ’s mighty acts with the bread and cup (APBA, 1995: 137).

Thanksgiving 5 in APBA (1995: 139-140) is a short thanksgiving in responsive form, based on Holy Communion – Outline Order (1988) developed by the Liturgical Commission to provide for “a degree of informality and freedom” (Holy Communion – Outline Order, 1988: 3). The eucharistic theology of Thanksgiving 5 contains the following realist expression:

“And now we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine; may we who receive them, as Jesus said, share his body and his blood.” (APBA, 1995: 140).

There is a clear realist link between the bread and wine, the receiving of them and the sharing of Christ’s body and blood. Realist linking is also expressed in the words following the institution narrative, which say:

“You have gathered us together to feed on Christ and to remember all he has done for us.” (APBA, 1995: 140).

Here the mighty works of Christ are expressed in a generalised way (‘all he has done for us’) and this is linked in a realist way with the gathering together in the Eucharist and with the feeding on Christ.

Other suggestions of a realist theology in the Second Order of APBA (1995) are to be found in the words said by the priest and people at the fraction, that is:

“We break this bread to share in the body of Christ. We who are many are one body in Christ, for we all share in the one bread.” (APBA, 1995: 141).

Here there is a realist linking between the bread broken and the sharing in the body of Christ, both in an ecclesial sense (the Church as the body of Christ) and in the sense of sharing in the one bread, identifying the bread with the sharing and with the body of Christ. The Benedictus is also printed in the text of the Thanksgivings in Second Order and whilst recognising the practice of many within the Anglican Church of Australia to use these words following the Sanctus, the use of the Benedictus has also been generally associated with those liturgies which present a realist eucharistic theology and which have been objected to by Evangelicals since the use of the Benedictus and the Agnus Dei are seen to signal “a doctrine of the real and substantial presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on A Prayer Book for Australia, 1996: 456, paragraph 24). Gillian Varcoe commented that the inclusion of the Benedictus in APBA (1995) provoked the comment that “people might think it means transubstantiation” (Varcoe, 1998: 188). Gilbert Sinden in his commentary on AAPB (1978) argued that some object to the inclusion of the Benedictus in the Eucharist since “it seems to point to a ‘coming’ of the Lord Jesus at a particular moment in the consecration” (Sinden, 1978: 150) however he rejects this on the argument that the Benedictus points us to the passion of Christ and that we are privileged to share in worship with Christ. Evan Burge argues in a way that seems to respond directly to the criticisms of the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA, saying that the use of the Benedictus has nothing to do with any doctrine of transubstantiation (Burge, 1995: 6, note 67), as the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA suggests. Burge argues instead that the Benedictus is in fact an expression of the same idea acceptable to Evangelicals in the Third Order of APBA (i.e. “Come, Lord Jesus!”, AAPB, 1995: 177) which derives from Experimental Sunday Services (1993: 33) and which is itself a product of the Diocese of Sydney.

The use of the Agnus Dei is also allowed in the Second Order of APBA (1995) but is not printed in the actual eucharistic service but in a section entitled ‘Additional Prayers and Anthems’ (APBA, 1995: 145-146). Once again the Agnus Dei has often been associated with eucharistic liturgies which present a realist eucharistic theology, and it is for this reason that the Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA (1996: 456) rejects its use on the same basis as it rejects the use of the Benedictus (that it teaches “a doctrine of the real and substantial presence” of Christ in the Eucharist (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on A Prayer Book for Australia, 1996: 456, paragraph 24). Rejection or acceptance of a realist theology of Christ’s eucharistic presence seems to be the basis for the rejection or acceptance of these aspects of the Second Order of the Eucharist in APBA (1995).

The Third Order of the Eucharist in APBA (1995: 167-180) is based on Experimental Sunday Services (1993) produced within the Diocese of Sydney (Burge, 1995: 6, note 67). It reflects modern liturgical shape but does not express an explicit realist theology of the Eucharist. While some see the Third Order as having “simple theological clarity” (Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA, 1996: 469) and the possessing of “several indicators of substitutionary atonement” as commendable (Doyle, 1997a: 25-26) and therefore “very welcome” (Doyle, 1997a: 26), others view the Third Order from a Catholic perspective as lacking “adequate reference to the sacramental bread and cup as a divinely appointed sacramental means of feeding on Christ” (Burge, 1995, 3, note 47) and see the Third Order as “not recommended” (The Holy Eucharist – Diocese of Ballarat, 1995: 201) and expressive of “the Protestant doctrine of the 1552 BCP” (The Holy Eucharist,2002: 7). This discussion suggests that whereas some (Burge, 1995 and The Holy Eucharist, 1995/2002) see the application of a sacramental principle in the Eucharist as appropriate according to their particular Catholic view of eucharistic theology, others (The Sydney Doctrine Commission Report on APBA, 1996 and Doyle, 1997a) do not. The Third Order of APBA therefore represents an attempt to construct of eucharistic liturgy which expresses a specifically less realist theology of the Eucharist.

The Third Order contains no epiclesis or oblation although there is some realist linking of the signs of bread and wine with the mighty acts of Christ in the following anamnesis:

“And now, gracious God, we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine, and pray that we who receive them, in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, according to our Saviour’s word, in remembrance of his suffering and death, may share his body and blood.” (APBA, 1995: 176).

The linking here seems to be between the bread and the wine, the receiving of them, the sharing of Christ’s body and blood and the remembering of Christ’s suffering and death. This suggests a receptionist emphasis here, such as is found in the 1552 BCP, with any realist linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ, limited to the action of receiving. Burge argues that the Liturgical Commission included the Third Order “for its simplicity and doctrinal congruity with the BCP, but not to gratify one party” (Burge, 1995: 3, note 47) but despite Burge’s assertion, it seems that the Third Order is acceptable to Evangelicals precisely because it gratifies their understanding of eucharistic theology, in much the same way the Second Order is acceptable to Catholics because it gratifies their understanding of eucharistic theology. In much the same way the Third Order is unacceptable to some Catholics (e.g. Bishop Silk argues in the first edition of his manual for the Diocese of Ballarat that “the Eucharistic Prayer in the Third Order is not recommended”, The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 121), just as the Second Order is unacceptable to some Evangelicals (Doyle, 1997a).

Liturgical Responses to APBA 1995

Two significant liturgical responses have occurred since the publication of A Prayer Book for Australia (1995) – one in the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Ballarat and another in the Evangelical Diocese of Sydney. Interestingly, although both these eucharistic resources are distinctly different in their eucharistic theology and the philosophical assumptions underlying this theology, both are authorised and published under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia/

The Holy Eucharist 1995/2002 (Diocese of Ballarat)

In the Diocese of Ballarat a manual entitled The Holy Eucharist (1995/2002) attempts to correct deficiencies in APBA (1995) and present alternative forms of the Thanksgiving (as well as material not included in APBA) so as to provide liturgies “capable of Catholic interpretation” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 198) or “patient of a Catholic interpretation” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 8). The Holy Eucharist (1995/2002) has been assembled by the Bishop of Ballarat, The Right Reverend David Silk in an attempt to draw material from a wide variety of sources, including AAPB (1978), APBA (1995), other parts of the Anglican Communion and other Christian traditions. These materials he authorises for use in the Diocese of Ballarat under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia. Some analysis of material presented in The Holy Eucharist (1995) will be presented below.

“Merciful God, we thank you for these gifts of your creation, this bread and this wine, and we pray that by your Word and Holy Spirit, we who eat and drink them may by them be partakers of Christ’s body and blood.” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 138).

The intention here seems to be to identify the signs of bread and wine more closely with the signified body and blood of Christ. By means of adding the words ‘by them’ an emphasising of a realist theology of Christ’s eucharistic presence is made.

In amending Thanksgiving 2 of APBA (1995) Silk makes the following additions (in italics) to the anamnesis:

“With this bread and this cup we celebrate his saving death and sacrifice until he comes.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 111).

The sense here seems to be that in the Eucharist there is a celebration, not only of Christ’s death but also his sacrifice and that this celebration of sacrifice continues until Christ returns. Here then is a realist linking of the Christ’s death and sacrifice with the celebration of the Eucharist and specifically with the bread and cup. In the second edition of the manual Bishop Silk however does not recommend this thanksgiving prayer, arguing that because of eastern orthodox style with the epiclesis after the Institution/Memorial, it does not reflect the ‘western’ catholic shape which characterises the Book of Common Prayer and the Anglican tradition (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 8).

In his treatment of Thanksgiving 4 of APBA (1995) Silk again uses the words ‘by them’ to link the signs more closely and obviously with the signified, but he also amends the end of the eucharistic prayer by adding (in italics) to these words:

The original had read: “Receive our praises, Father, through Jesus Christ our Lord” (APBA, 1995: 138) suggesting a general offering of praise. The amendment however, now seems to make the point that there is one sacrifice of praise. It could be argued that this ‘sacrifice of praise’ is the Eucharist, apart from praise offered by people for the work of Christ. If this is so, then there is a more realist identification of the eucharistic sacrifice with the sacrifice of Christ than was the case in the original form of APBA (1995). It is interesting to note that in the second edition of his manual Silk drops these amendments and reverts to the original wording of APBA (1995) (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 147).

In relation to the amendments put forward for Thanksgiving 5 of APBA (1995) Bishop Silk argues that Thanksgiving 5, “lacks memorial (anamnesis) and an invocation (epiclesis) related to the eucharistic action” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 198). Accordingly to rectify this situation, Silk amends (in italics) Thanksgiving 5 in the following way:

“Loving Father, you have gathered us together to remember all that Jesus did to save us. In this holy sacrifice which he gave as a gift to his Church we remember his dying and his rising. Fill us with the joy of the Holy Spirit as in this holy meal we receive the body and blood of your Son.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 120).

Here there is clear evidence that Silk intends that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, coming to the Church from Christ himself, and that it is by this sacrifice in the Eucharist that Christ’s dying and rising is remembered and Christ’s body and blood is received. These amendments are clearly realist – identifying the signs of bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ and the sacrifice of Christ’s death with the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

In relation to the epiclesis, Silk makes the following amendments (in italics):

“And now we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine; bless them and make them holy, that we who receive them, as Jesus said, may share his body and blood.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 119).

The intention of blessing the bread and wine is to make them holy so that those who receive them may share Christ’s body and blood. This is clearly a more realist interpretation than Thanksgiving 5 of APBA (1995) intended and indicates that Bishop Silk intended, by his amendments, to make Thanksgiving 5 more realist in relation to the linking of the signs of bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ. In the second edition of his manual however, Silk avoids the necessity for amendment by simply advising that Thanksgiving 5 is not recommended and by omitting the amendments. Clearly he rejects the theology of Thanksgiving 5 and no longer opts fro amendment, arguing that Thanksgiving 5 “is drafted in such a way as to exclude the catholic understanding of the Eucharist and to reflect the doctrinal position of 1552 – the real presence is in the heart of the believer, and the memorial is in the reception rather than the offering” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 8). The reason he puts in the second edition of the manual is based on the assertion that Thanksgiving 5 is not realist in the association of the sign with the signified.

In other sections of The Holy Eucharist (1995/2002) Silk includes a variety of Thanksgiving Prayers from other sources, such as a Thanksgiving based on the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a Thanksgiving from Papua New Guinea and an ecumenical text entitled ‘Lima Text’ (pages 133-136) deriving from the theology of the World Council of Church document Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1983). He also includes the Western Roman Canon. In each of these prayers, realist concepts of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice are used. Examples of the type of wording are shown below:

In the 1995 edition of The Holy Eucharist in a Thanksgiving described as ‘Anglican Communion after Hippolytus’, the following epiclesis is found expressing realist concepts:

“Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 122).

In the 2002 edition of The Holy Eucharist however, this has become even more realist, saying:

“Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 161)

In a thanksgiving prayer entitled ‘Anglican – Papua New Guinea’ is found:

“We offer you the bread of eternal life and this cup of eternal salvation.” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 158).

In a thanksgiving entitled ‘The Western (Roman) Canon’ is found:

“We offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.” (The Holy Eucharist, 1995: 141).

In the 2002 edition of The Holy Eucharist in a thanksgiving entitled simply ‘Roman Catholic’ the prayer prays:

“we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice. … Lord, may this sacrifice, which has made our peace with you, advance the peace and salvation of all the world.” (The Holy Eucharist, 2002: 166-167).

Silk’s intention in using these forms of the Thanksgiving Prayer and in the amendments he makes to AAPB (1978) and APBA (1995) is to bring into use more developed Catholic forms of the epiclesis, the anamnesis and the oblation, so as to make the theology of the Eucharist explicitly realist in a moderate sense.

Sunday Services 2001 (Diocese of Sydney)

In the Diocese of Sydney a set of liturgical resources, entitled Sunday Services. A Contemporary Liturgical Resource has been published by the Archbishop of Sydney’s Liturgical Panel and authorised by Archbishop Peter Jensen (under Article 4 of the Constitution of the Anglican Church of Australia) in 2001, in both book form and on the Internet (www.sundayservices.net) in an attempt to provide liturgical resources which are “biblical in content, intelligible in language and appropriate to our time and culture” (Sunday Services, 2001: 2). Having said this, Sunday Services (2001: 3) also claims to stand firmly within the Reformation tradition of Archbishop Cranmer and so presents several eucharistic liturgies, or Services of the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion, which reflect this tradition. Three liturgies of the Eucharist are presented – Form 1 (a translation of the service of Holy Communion in the 1662 BCP; and Forms 2A and 2B, both a development of Experimental Sunday Services (1993) previously published in the Diocese of Sydney, and cast in the shape of modern eucharistic liturgies.

Form 1 (style of 1662) focuses on the death of Jesus Christ and gives emphasis to the theological concepts of atonement and justification by faith. These themes are most apparent in the Prayer of Consecration where the following is found:

“We thank you our heavenly Father that in your love and mercy you gave your only Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross to save us. By this offering of himself once and for all time, Jesus made the perfect, complete sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, satisfying your just demands in full.” (Sunday Services, 2001: 55).

The work of the cross is emphasised and the other mighty acts of Christ (resurrection and ascension) are not mentioned, however there is a sentence which mentions the coming of Christ again and states:

“Jesus commanded us to remember his death until his coming again.” (Sunday Services, 2001: 55).

There is no specific link in these liturgies linking the work of Christ on the cross or remembering his death until his coming again, with the Eucharist in any realist manner. In the next paragraph however, is found these words:

“Hear us, merciful Father, and grant that we, who eat and drink this bread and wine, may remember his death, and share in his body and blood.” (Sunday Services, 2001: 55).

There is still no clear realist link between the signs of bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ or the remembering of Christ’s death. The act of eating and drinking the bread and wine does not necessarily have any link with the remembering and the sharing, apart from the fact that the act of eating and drinking seem to be occurring at the same period of time as the sharing in Christ’s body and blood.

The institution narrative follows with no epiclesis or anamnesis and reception of communion follows immediately after the ‘Amen’ with no anthems or acclamations – all this being in the pattern of the 1662 BCP service of Holy Communion. Significantly the words of administration are altered from the words in the 1662 BCP. Whereas 1662 says:

“The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life: Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving.” (1662 BCP words of administration).

Sunday Services says:

The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for you, keep your body and soul for everlasting life. Take and eat this, remembering that Christ died for you, and feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.” (Sunday Services, 2001: 56).

Significantly, ‘in remembrance’ in the 1662 BCP, indicating that the bread is linked in some way with the bread and wine as the act of ‘remembrance’, has been altered in Sunday Services (2001) to ‘remembering’, where the emphasis is now upon the action of the communicant in bringing to mind that Christ died. The addition of the comma in the Sunday Services (2001) form also separates the ‘this’ (that is the bread/wine) from the remembering and places the emphasis not on the act of remembrance with the bread/wine, but on the act of remembering (bringing to mind a past and completed event as an act of faith) apart from the bread. Clearly there seems to be a deliberate attempt here to lessen any sense of realism where the signs of bread and wine are linked to the remembrance of Christ’s death. This is reinforced by the prayers which follow communion. Any sense of offering is of self alone, only after communion and clearly not in conjunction with the offering of bread and wine. Sacrifice relates only to the people who are described as “living sacrifices” (Sunday Services, 2001: 57). A nominalist separation of sign and signified seems to dominate in this service.

The theological background of this service is set out clearly by Archbishop Jensen himself in an address to the National Evangelical Anglican Congress in the United Kingdom in September, 2003. Here Jensen argues according to his Evangelical agenda that:

“Again and again in the New Testament we discover the truly crucial point, the pivotal moment in our salvation is the death of Jesus Christ. His incarnation, his resurrection, his ascension – all these and more are essential to his work. But it is his death which is the key. It is no accident that the gospels give so much attention to his death.” (Jensen, 2003d: 2)

Clearly it is the death of Christ that is emphasised, not the other mighty acts, and this is reflected in this liturgy of the Diocese of Sydney where Jensen is the Archbishop and whose approval has been to allow the use of this eucharistic liturgy. It is Jensen’s belief that the sacrifice of Christ was “so great and all sufficient … that it has never and can never be repeated, not even sacramentally; we cannot add to it or supplement it” (Jensen, 2003d: 4). This means for Jensen that there can no instantiation of the sacrifice of Christ in the present in the Eucharist and that Christians cannot move beyond the cross of Jesus in a sacramental manner. He argues this point in the following way using St Paul, although he does not cite his biblical references:

“Twice when Paul talked about the love of Christ he used a very significant past tense. We would say that Christ loves us; he said Christ loved us. He could not graduate beyond the cross of Jesus as the source and power of his religion; as the place at which he gained assurance; as the demonstration beyond any other need of proof, of the grace and love of God.” (Jensen, 2003d: 5-6).

This position Jensen declares to be “inherent to evangelical religion” (Jensen, 2003d: 5) and clearly it is reflected in the theology of the first eucharistic liturgy of Sunday Services (2001).

Form 2A (modern liturgical shape) however, refers to the mighty acts of Christ other than his death (resurrection and coming again) and to Christ’s sacrifice as once offered, a true sacrifice for sin, a reconciliation and satisfaction of God’s just demands and as the means of securing eternal deliverance (Sunday Services, 2001: 66-67). The institution narrative follows and then the people join the minister in saying:

“Therefore Father, we thank you for these gifts of bread and wine, and pray that we who eat and drink them, believing our Saviour’s word, may share his body and blood.” (Sunday Services, 2001: 67).

It is the eating and the drinking that is linked to the sharing of the body and blood and not the signs of bread and wine. This seems to be expressing a receptionist doctrine and not a realist identification of sign with signified. This is emphasised by the exchange between minister and people which follows where the following words are used:

“We eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord

to proclaim our fellowship in his death.

We do this until he returns

Come Lord Jesus, come!” (Sunday Services, 2001: 67)

Once again it is the eating and drinking (receptionism) that is linked with the proclamation, not the signs of bread and wine. The signs of bread and wine and the signified body and blood of Christ are separated entities and the eucharistic theology of this service and that following (i.e. 2B) seem to depend on nominalism rather than realism.

Conclusion

The Anglican eucharistic liturgies of the twentieth century, reviewed above, tend to depend heavily on a realist understanding of eucharistic theology, but there remains a nominalist understanding of eucharistic theology as well. This finding supports the thesis of this project that both a realist and a nominalist theology of the Eucharist have been present in the Anglican eucharistic tradition since the time of the Reformation. Evidence presented above however, seems to indicate that realism is the dominant philosophical concept behind the expression of eucharistic theology in the twentieth century, where sign and signified are identified with one another and where the signified is instantiated in the sign. Where realism is expressed it is in the moderate degree but there seems to be some significant differences in way this moderate realism is expressed. Some eucharistic liturgies express a realist theology in an ecclesial sense, whereas other suggest that the bread and wine is shared so that the communicants are partakers of the body and blood of Christ. Still others, in a more developed realist sense, express the idea that through the action of the Holy Spirit the bread and wine ‘become’ or ‘be’ the body and blood of Christ. Realism related to eucharistic sacrifice also varies in that some realist liturgies express the idea that the celebration and proclamation of Christ’s mighty acts takes place in the presence of the bread and wine whereas others specifically offer the bread and wine to God as an oblation. Where an oblation is used it is not intended that such an oblation be a new offering (immoderate realism) but that it be joined to the one offering of Christ (moderate realism). Despite the wide acceptance of realism within Anglican eucharistic liturgies of the twentieth century, some Anglican eucharistic liturgies reject a realist philosophy in relation to eucharistic theology and focus on a nominalist separation of sign and signified (e.g. Sunday Services, 2001). In these liturgies the signs (bread/wine/eucharistic sacrifice) of the Eucharist are separated from the signified (body and blood of Christ and sacrifice of Christ) and the basic idea of a realist sacramental principle is rejected. Often these eucharistic liturgies based on a nominalist philosophical position express a receptionist doctrine of eucharistic theology or restrict the action of the Eucharist to the response of faith alone.

Anglican Eucharistic Liturgies of the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries